In Re: Adoption of A.M., a minor Appeal of: J.S.M.
859 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Child A.M., born May 2013, was placed in foster care February 7, 2015 after Mother's arrest for heroin; Father (J.S.M.) had minimal prior involvement per Virginia records.
- Father worked in the gas industry, suffered a workplace injury in March 2015, and had a history of opioid/pain‑pill abuse; he later underwent Suboxone treatment.
- Dependency orders required Father to complete drug/alcohol and mental‑health evaluations, parenting classes, and maintain contact; Father attended visits but was often late, quit a parenting program in August 2015, moved to Virginia, and saw the child once after moving.
- Father maintained frequent phone contact (about five calls/week) but made only one in‑person visit in the ten months before the termination hearing; he received workers’ compensation and had means to visit.
- CYS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; the Orphans’ Court terminated rights under § 2511(a)(1) and (b). Mother voluntarily relinquished rights and is not a party here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) was proven (failure to perform parental duties / settled purpose to relinquish) | Father failed to perform parental duties in the six months before filing and evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish by moving away, not completing services, and minimal visitation. | Father contends CYS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he relinquished claims or failed to perform parental duties. | Court affirmed: §2511(a)(1) satisfied—Father failed to perform duties and evidenced settled purpose. |
| Whether §2511(b) was met (best interests / bond analysis) | Termination serves child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; parent–child bond is minimal and foster parents provide stability; severance would not harm child. | Father argues record lacks testimony about his bond with child and effects of severance; court improperly relied on foster parents’ willingness to permit post‑adoption contact. | Court affirmed: bond was minimal, termination in child’s best interests; foster parents’ willingness to maintain contact noted but not outcome‑determinative. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review and definition of clear and convincing evidence in parental‑termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) and (b); bond and best‑interest inquiry)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (importance of love, comfort, security and analysis of parent–child bond under §2511(b))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of a bond exists, it is reasonable to infer none exists)
- In re Adoption of G.L.L., 124 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2015) (open adoption/ongoing contact agreements are voluntary and not guaranteed)
- In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (parental duty requires affirmative performance to meet child’s physical and emotional needs)