Adoption of S.R.P., Appeal of: J.P., father
820 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Father (J.P.) appealed the involuntary termination of his parental rights to three dependent children (one born 2009, twins born 2011) following a CYS petition and multiple dependency proceedings beginning 2013.
- CYS intervened for concerns including domestic violence, parental mental-health issues, inadequate supervision/parenting, poor hygiene/housekeeping, and unstable housing; children were removed and in foster care for ~37–39 months.
- A permanency plan required stable housing, counseling/anger management, psychological/parenting evaluations, cooperation with service providers, and demonstration of parenting skills during visits; Father’s progress was minimal to none.
- Psychological evaluation and IFS treatment records (and testimony from caseworkers and providers) described Father as inattentive, unstructured, combative with providers, and unlikely to independently meet the children’s needs.
- CYS sought termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the trial court terminated Father’s rights (May 2017). Father appealed only the Section 2511(b) / best-interests analysis.
- The Superior Court affirmed, finding competent evidence (caseworker testimony, therapist/psychologist evaluations, and stability in a pre-adoptive foster home) supported that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and that severing the parental relationship would not be detrimental.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Father’s parental rights was supported under §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare; effect of severing parental bond) | CYS: Termination serves children’s needs—children have been in foster care long-term, are thriving in pre-adoptive placement, and evidence shows only a relationship, not a primary emotional bond, with Father. | Father: CYS failed to prove effect of termination on children; absence of a formal bonding assessment and evidence of loving relationship/appropriate visits meant the court could not conclude termination wouldn’t harm the children. | Affirmed: Superior Court held trial court reasonably found evidence (caseworker/therapist/psychologist testimony, length in care, stability in foster home) showed termination best served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; no formal bonding study required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court fact/credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial-court observations and credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis; focus on child’s needs and welfare in subsection (b))
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no formal bonding evaluation required; social workers/caseworkers can assess bonds)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (emotional needs/welfare include intangibles: love, comfort, security, stability)