In Re: A.J.H. and I.G.H., Minors
In Re: A.J.H. and I.G.H., Minors No. 1564 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Mother (K.J.R.) and Father had a long history of domestic violence and parental substance abuse that brought the children to the attention of Berks County Children and Youth Services (BCCYS) from birth onward; dependency adjudication entered April 3, 2014.
- Children were removed from the home and placed with maternal grandparents on November 17, 2014; primary goal reunification with concurrent goal adoption.
- Parents were ordered to complete services (domestic violence counseling, drug/alcohol treatment and screens, mental health treatment, parenting classes, casework); both showed only partial or inconsistent compliance.
- Mother completed a six‑month inpatient substance treatment program but failed to complete recommended aftercare, missed urine screens, and did not successfully complete domestic violence therapy; she maintained ongoing contact with Father.
- BCCYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights (23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b)); trial court granted termination as to Mother on August 23, 2016.
- Mother appealed, challenging (A) admissibility of a 168‑exhibit BCCYS packet, (B) sufficiency of evidence to satisfy § 2511(a) grounds, and (C) whether termination served the children’s best interests under § 2511(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (BCCYS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BCCYS case packet (168 exhibits) | Packet and typed case summary were hearsay, lacked proper authentication under the business‑records exception, contained medical/psychiatric opinions and inadmissible statements | Packet properly admitted under business records exception; any hearsay or extra statements were cumulative and did not prejudice Mother | Court admitted the packet; even if some hearsay issues existed, Mother failed to show prejudice and admission was harmless given the testimonial evidence supporting termination |
| Sufficiency under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity causing child to lack essential parental care and not remediable) | Mother argued children were not neglected or physically harmed, had no school problems, she had made significant progress (sobriety, treatment) and visits showed loving parenting | BCCYS pointed to prolonged exposure to domestic violence, inconsistent compliance with services, failure to complete aftercare/domestic violence counseling, continued contact with Father, and expert testimony that parents’ issues were unresolved and posed ongoing risk | Court found clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s repeated incapacity and refusal caused children to lack essential parental care and that the causes would not be remedied—§ 2511(a)(2) satisfied |
| Best interests under § 2511(b) (children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Mother argued a continued loving bond with children and that she could parent them now without Father | BCCYS relied on therapists and caseworker testimony that children suffered trauma, had improved with grandparents, felt safe with foster/kin caregivers, and reunification was not recommended | Court held termination favored children’s needs and welfare: children are bonded to grandparents, feel safe in placement, have trauma from parents’ conduct, and need permanence—§ 2511(b) satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court fact‑finding and credibility determinations in dependency/termination cases)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard that child’s need for permanency may outweigh parent’s future progress)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) best‑interest analysis may include bond but also safety, stability, continuity)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis: conduct first, then child’s best interests)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)