Adoption of: M.A.B., A Minor, Appeal of: Erie OCY
166 A.3d 434
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Two special-needs children (born 2009, 2010) were placed in foster care in Feb 2014 after maternal inpatient treatment and concerns about the parents’ substance abuse, mental health, and housing; dependency continued and Erie OCY served as custodian.
- Mother diagnosed with bipolar disorder and opioid dependence; she had inconsistent engagement in treatment, missed many court-ordered urinalyses, discontinued prescribed medications without supervision, and tested positive for Suboxone.
- Father diagnosed with bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence in remission; he was intermittently compliant with services, worked long hours, obtained housing, but continued to live with Mother and once permitted unauthorized contact between Mother and the children.
- After ~16 months in care, dependency court changed permanency goal to adoption (OCY recommended change) and OCY filed petitions to terminate parental rights (TPR) in Aug 2015 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
- Orphans’ Court denied TPR petitions, emphasizing positive visitation and parental progress; OCY and children’s guardian appealed. Superior Court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on the Section 2511(b) bond/welfare analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPR of Mother is supported under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity or refusal) | OCY: Mother's long-term substance abuse and untreated mental-health issues caused removal, persisted through filing (missed UA, off meds, inconsistent therapy), and cannot/ will not be remedied. | Orphans’ Ct: Mother showed progress, visits went well, and causes could be remedied; termination not proven. | Superior Ct: Reversed — record supports §2511(a)(2) as to Mother (OCY met clear-and-convincing burden). |
| Whether TPR of Father is supported under §2511(a)(8) (12+ months removed; conditions persist) | OCY: Children were removed >12 months; conditions (mother’s substance/mental-health risk and father’s continued cohabitation with mother) persisted; termination serves children’s needs. | Orphans’ Ct: Father had made significant progress, stable employment and housing; goal change to adoption not warranting termination. | Superior Ct: Reversed — §2511(a)(8) satisfied as father continued to live with mother and conditions persisted. |
| Whether termination meets children’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond, stability, intangibles) | OCY/GAL: Children are bonded to foster/pre-adoptive home, have stabilized and improved; severing parental rights would not be detrimental. | Orphans’ Ct: Parent–child visits were positive; children bonded to parents; termination would destroy beneficial bonds; supportive services could facilitate reunification. | Superior Ct: Remanded — Orphans’ Court failed to adequately analyze the bond/welfare factors (ignored testimony that bond to foster family was primary); must reassess §2511(b) in light of evidence. |
| Standard of review / scope of Orphans’ Court deference | OCY: Orphans’ Court should not substitute its judgment for dependency court findings; factual findings must be supported by competent evidence. | Orphans’ Ct: Relied on its assessment of visits and parental progress. | Superior Ct: Held appellate review limited but will reverse where Orphans’ Court abused discretion or erred in law; here Orphans’ Court’s conclusions on (a)(2)/(a)(8) unsupported and (b) analysis incomplete. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review in TPR appeals)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (burden of proof and appellate review principles in TPR cases)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements of §2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (application of §2511(a)(8) and explanation that remedial evaluation is not required under subsection)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§2511(b) considerations: love, comfort, security, stability, and bond analysis)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (importance of continuity and parental duty to use available resources)