Adoption of: V.R.C., minor, Appeal of: J.C.
1096 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- Child (born Mar. 2015) was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care when about 10–11 months old; Mother has been incarcerated for much of the dependency/termination timeline.
- OCY changed the Child’s permanency goal to adoption after paternity testing identified the biological father, who voluntarily relinquished his rights.
- Mother was ordered to complete a mental-health assessment and participate in rehabilitative/parenting classes while incarcerated; she consistently denied needing services and refused or failed to engage.
- Mother had virtually no contact with the Child while incarcerated (no visits, minimal appropriate correspondence); a pre‑adoptive family became the Child’s placement and caregivers report a bond with the Child.
- OCY petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the orphans’ court terminated under § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | OCY / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCY proved grounds for termination under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity, neglect/refusal that cannot be remedied) | Mother: incarceration and absence of a formal mental‑health diagnosis mean OCY failed to show unremedied incapacity or neglect; services were unavailable or transfers prevented participation | OCY/Court: Mother refused court‑ordered services, had no meaningful contact with Child, and incarceration plus behavior/disciplinary issues made timely reunification unrealistic | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination met the Child’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b) (best interests; bond analysis) | Mother: No formal or informal bonding assessment was performed; court lacked evidence to conclude severing the bond would not harm the Child | OCY/Court: Child was placed as an infant, had no meaningful relationship with Mother for ~18 months, was bonded to pre‑adoptive family; caseworker and GAL testimony supported termination to secure permanency | Court held termination was in the Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2) where it renders parent incapable of providing essential parental care)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis: first parental conduct under (a), then child’s needs under (b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to establish termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental incapacity can include refusal and failure to perform parental duties)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of a bond exists, court may infer none and may rely on testimony of caseworkers without a formal bonding evaluation)