In Re: A.R.-H. and I.R.-H. Appeal of: D.H., Father
In Re: A.R.-H. and I.R.-H. Appeal of: D.H., Father No. 1606 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Children (born 2007 and 2010) were removed from parents on November 17, 2014 after repeated reports of domestic violence between Mother and Father, parental substance use, and unstable housing; they were placed with maternal grandparents.
- BCCYS developed a permanency plan requiring parents to complete domestic violence counseling, drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment, mental health treatment, stable housing and employment, and supervised/then unsupervised visitation; parents showed limited compliance and minimal progress.
- Father attended some programs (domestic violence and dual-diagnosis treatment) but was discharged from domestic violence treatment for lack of progress and failed to demonstrate sustained behavioral change or insight into his abusive conduct.
- BCCYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights on February 19, 2016; trial was held August 12, 2016 and the court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); appeal followed.
- Trial testimony (therapist, BCCYS caseworker, child prep worker) described children’s trauma symptoms, improved adjustment in grandparents’ care, an anxious/awkward bond between Father and the children, and concerns that Father pressured/coached the children during visits and made false promises.
- The trial court concluded Father’s ongoing lack of insight and failure to remedy the causes of removal left the children without essential parental care and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (BCCYS) | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 1200‑page BCCYS packet | Packet is business records admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(6) and supports factual findings | Packet contained multilayer hearsay, lacked proper authentication, and was inadmissible | Court admitted packet under business‑records exception; even if some hearsay was present, Father failed to show prejudice and any error was harmless; claim denied |
| Sufficiency under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | Father’s repeated incapacity/abuse/neglect caused children to lack essential parental care and will not be remedied | Father argued evidence was not substantial/credible to meet clear and convincing standard | Court found clear and convincing evidence of repeated/continued incapacity and lack of remedial prospects; termination under (a)(2) affirmed |
| Best interests under § 2511(b) | Termination is in children’s best interests given their trauma, stable attachment to grandparents, safety needs, and children’s expressed wish to stay | Father argued bond/parental relationship weigh against termination | Court held children’s need for stability and safety outweighed any parental bond; termination favored the children’s developmental, physical and emotional welfare |
| Procedural/default (concise statement/appeal filing) | BCCYS/guardian noted no prejudice from single notice and consolidated appeal | Father failed to timely file precise Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement and filed one notice for multiple decrees | Court (and Superior Court) declined to quash appeal as Father’s procedural missteps caused no prejudice; substantive claims reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard for appellate review of termination decisions)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial court fact-finding deference where judge observed parties over time)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental incapacity includes refusal and inability to perform duties)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (considerations for § 2511(b) best‑interest analysis: bond, safety, stability, continuity)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (harmless‑error framework for evidentiary rulings)