247 A.3d 439
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Child A.H., born ~2009, was removed from Mother (C.W.) in March 2018 after Mother was involuntarily committed for mental-health treatment; dependency adjudication occurred April 23, 2018.
- Agency created a reunification plan requiring mental-health treatment, parenting work, visitation, and a safe home; Mother repeatedly resisted Agency evaluations, sought independent providers, and engaged only on her terms.
- Child lived with a pre-adoptive foster parent beginning April 15, 2019 and had been out of Mother’s care ~28 months at the termination hearing; Father consented to termination.
- In June 2020 the Agency filed to change the dependency goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights; hearings were held July 14 and 28, 2020; orphans’ court entered decree terminating Mother’s rights on August 4, 2020.
- Orphans’ court terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b) based on Mother’s untreated/undertreated psychiatric disorders, failure to cooperate with Agency evaluations, and insufficient progress; Child’s attorney and bonding expert supported adoption/permanency.
- Mother appealed the termination (arguing insufficiency under multiple §2511(a) subsections and §2511(b)) and sought review of the dependency court’s goal change; the appellate court found the goal-change claim waived and affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/Orphans’ Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence met §2511(a) grounds (particularly (a)(2)) | Mother disputes the severity of diagnoses, cites treating providers, says she sought treatment and therefore termination is not warranted | Mother refused/limited Agency evaluations, engaged in doctor-shopping, and made insufficient progress over ~28 months | Termination upheld under §2511(a)(2): parental incapacity due to untreated mental illness not remedied |
| Whether termination meets child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b) | Mother contends bond and preference for PLC; argues child loves her and termination is harmful | Child is thriving with pre-adoptive parent, child’s counsel and expert testified adoption/permanency best serves child | §2511(b) satisfied: termination best serves child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs |
| Whether dependency court erred in changing goal to adoption | Mother challenges goal change as improper | Agency proceeded appropriately; but procedural issue: goal change was on a separate dependency docket | Goal-change claim waived because Mother did not timely appeal the separate dependency order; moot after affirming termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258 (Pa. Super. 2019) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance if any proper statutory ground supported termination)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (may affirm on any proper basis)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental incapacity need not be affirmative misconduct)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (termination appropriate when parent fails to benefit from reasonable efforts)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§2511(b) focuses on child’s love, comfort, security, stability and bond analysis)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no bond evidence may justify limited bond analysis)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (analysis of §2511(b) factors)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (separate appeals required for orders resolving issues on different dockets)
- Interest of D.R.W., 227 A.3d 905 (Pa. Super. 2020) (mootness principle where ruling cannot affect legal rights)