In Re: A.R. & B.R., Minors Appeal of: B.R., Father
920 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Children A.R. (b. Sept 2011) and B.R. (b. Sept 2012) were taken into protective custody Jan 2, 2015 after concerns about inadequate housing, mother’s heroin use, and lack of childcare while Father worked; they remained in continuous placement.
- ACCYS developed a reunification plan directing Father to obtain stable housing, restore driving privileges/transportation, secure childcare, attend parenting classes, participate in services and visits, and address utility and legal-financial obligations.
- Over 2015–early 2016 Father intermittently visited, failed to complete parenting classes, remained in unstable housing (motels), did not restore operating privileges, and drove unlawfully (DUI conviction from Aug 2015 incident); Mother relapsed and later voluntarily relinquished her rights.
- Agency and foster parents reported escalating behavioral and emotional problems in the children tied to instability and to visits, and concerns that Father facilitated covert contact between the children and Mother despite agency directives.
- ACCYS filed petitions to terminate parental rights March 4, 2016; the trial court held hearings May 4 and May 10, 2016 and terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACCYS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) (settled purpose/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father repeatedly failed to perform parental duties for the statutory period: unstable housing, missed appointments/visits, refusal to attend parenting classes, covertly enabling Mother’s contact | Father contends he made efforts (employment, lease, looked for childcare) and the court erred in finding a settled purpose to relinquish | Held for ACCYS: record shows continued refusal/failure to perform duties; court credited history over Father’s late promises |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) and (a)(5) are met (repeated incapacity/conditions causing lack of essential parental care and inability to remedy for 6+ months) | Father’s incapacity/neglect (housing, transportation, parenting, Mother’s addiction) left children without essential care and causes won’t be remedied | Father asserts recent steps toward stability show remedying of conditions | Held for ACCYS: court found repeated/continued incapacity and refusal to remedy; Father’s limited or belated steps insufficient |
| Whether §2511(a)(8) is met (children removed 12+ months and conditions persist) | Children were in placement >12 months; conditions that led to removal continued; termination is in children’s best interests | Father points to post-petition improvements (lease, efforts) and challenges the finding that conditions continued | Held for ACCYS: statutory 12-month threshold satisfied and post‑petition efforts not considered; conditions persisted at time of filing |
| Whether termination would serve children’s best interests under §2511(b) | Termination promotes permanency, stability, and meets developmental/ emotional needs given children’s behavioral decline and foster parents’ reluctance to continue | Father argues there is a bond and that severance would harm children; he contends he can provide stability going forward | Held for ACCYS: court found any bond limited, outweighed by children’s need for permanence and stability; termination favored children’s welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of review in parental termination appeals)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-part inquiry for §2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post-abandonment contact, effect under §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of G.L.L., 124 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2015) (burden of proof and clear-and-convincing standard in termination proceedings)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (attention to parent–child bond and effect of severance under §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (must find statutory ground under §2511(a) before weighing best interests under §2511(b))