Adoption of P.E., Appeal of: J.G., natural father
707 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Child born Sept. 2014; adjudicated dependent soon after; Father’s paternity established in Oct. 2014. Father is a Tier III Megan’s Law registrant and violated probation terms forbidding contact with minor females.
- OCY filed for aggravated circumstances and sought to suspend visitation; aggravated circumstances were found but visitation continued and reunification was initially retained; a service plan for Father was ordered.
- Father received numerous services (Project First Steps, bonding/psychological evaluations by Dr. von Korff, supervised visits, UA testing) but repeatedly failed to comply or sustain progress (missed/ diluted UAs, positive alcohol result, unsuccessful discharge from programs, unsafe handling of a baby simulator and Child).
- Service providers and the bonding evaluator found Father defensive, minimiz ing his problems, unable to internalize feedback, and lacking insight into Child’s medical needs and cues; Child showed little attachment to Father and was bonded to a pre-adoptive family.
- The Agency petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under multiple grounds including 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (a)(11); after hearings the Orphans’ Court terminated Father’s rights on April 11, 2017. Father appealed; appellate courts affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency/Orphans’ Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion in finding Father unwilling/unable to accept criticism and parent effectively (§ 2511(a)(1)/(2)) | Father argued he remedied removal causes, complied with services, and was misjudged/lacked opportunity | Father was defensive, inconsistent, manipulated impressions, and failed to complete/benefit from court-ordered services | Court found clear and convincing evidence of repeated incapacity/refusal; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Father failed to comply with the service plan | Father claimed consistent work toward goals and capacity to parent | Record showed missed/dilute UAs, positive alcohol test, discharge from program, inconsistent attendance, and selective engagement | Court held Father failed to comply; supported termination grounds |
| Whether termination was against Child’s best interests given alleged bond | Father asserted a developing father‑son bond and capacity to parent | Evaluator and providers found minimal bond; Child thrived in pre‑adoptive home and needed stability | Court concluded termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b) |
| Whether Father’s status as a sexual offender required or improperly influenced termination | Father argued status alone should not justify termination | Court considered status among other factors but relied on demonstrated incapacity and lack of bond | Court did not terminate solely for registration status; termination upheld on established statutory grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court fact/credibility findings in dependency/termination cases)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511 and focus on child in § 2511(b))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (consideration of child’s need for permanency and bond analysis in § 2511(b) review)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under § 2511(a)(2))