In Re: A.N.H.
In Re: A.N.H. No. 2370 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Mother (T.A.H.) appealed decrees terminating her parental rights to five children born 2007–2013; appeals consolidated in Superior Court and trial court opinion affirmed termination.
- Bucks County CYF filed termination petitions (Dec 2014 / Mar 2015) after a long history of agency involvement beginning in 2007, multiple removals, and repeated dependency adjudications.
- Primary grounds alleged: Mother's ongoing alcohol and prescription drug abuse, longstanding non‑compliance with agency testing and releases, domestic instability between parents, and inability to provide stable home.
- Children had been placed with maternal grandmother since 2013 (earlier foster placements at times); dependency court goals were changed to adoption for all five children.
- Trial court held multi‑day evidentiary hearings, found clear and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), and concluded there was no beneficial parent–child bond that would be harmed by termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was insufficient to terminate Mother's parental rights | Mother argued the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to involuntarily terminate her rights | CYF argued there was clear and convincing evidence of parental incapacity (alcohol/drug abuse), long‑term noncompliance, and reasons for removal persisted | Held: Affirmed — competent evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) |
| Whether Mother remedied conditions leading to removal within a reasonable time | Mother contended she had engaged in treatment and therapy and did not continue to drink after Dec 2013 | CYF emphasized ongoing avoidance (missed/late/avoided tests), positive drug tests, reports of intoxication, and instability making remediation unlikely | Held: Trial court credited CYF; Mother had not and would not remedy conditions within a reasonable time (§2511(a)(2), (5)) |
| Whether terminating rights would harm child welfare because of an existing parent–child bond | Mother implied termination would sever a beneficial relationship with her children | CYF and witnesses described children's stable, strong bond with maternal grandmother and lack of a necessary beneficial bond with Mother | Held: No evidence of a beneficial parental bond; termination served children's best interests (§2511(b)) |
| Whether a formal bonding expert was required | Mother argued bond considerations should weigh against termination (implied) | CYF noted bond was for the court to evaluate using caseworker and caregiver testimony; formal expert unnecessary | Held: Court followed precedent that no formal bonding evaluation is required; caseworker and caregiver testimony sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility findings entitled to deference)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreement with any one subsection of §2511(a) is sufficient to affirm termination)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard in dependency/termination context)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bifurcated analysis under §2511: first parental conduct, then child welfare/bond analysis)