In Re: Adoption of: A.C., a minor, Appeal of: A.C.
162 A.3d 1123
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child (A.C.) born July 2014 tested positive for drugs; initially placed with maternal cousin (foster mother); dependency adjudicated September 29, 2014.
- Father was not on birth certificate; adjudicated father after failing to appear in Domestic Relations matter and after DNA excluded another man.
- Father attended few visits before December 2014 and was incarcerated from December 2014–March 2016 (later acquitted of those charges); visited biweekly in jail and maintained contact.
- CYS filed a petition to terminate parental rights (initial petition Sept 2015; amended Apr 18, 2016). Mother’s rights were terminated after she failed to appear; Father’s termination hearing occurred in mid-2016.
- Bonding evaluation showed strong bond with foster mother and a forming bond with Father; evaluator concerned about Father’s criminal history.
- Trial court denied termination of Father’s rights on Sept 14, 2016; appeal filed by Child’s guardian ad litem.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) was proper (six-month conduct showing settled purpose or failure to perform parental duties) | CYS/Child: Father was largely absent and was incarcerated for ten months before filing; failed to show reasonable firmness or use available resources to maintain relationship | Father: After initial minimal involvement he regularly visited while incarcerated, complied with service plan after release, and sought to maintain relationship | Court: Denied termination under §2511(a)(1); Father’s post-incarceration efforts and jail visitation weigh against finding settled relinquishment or failure to perform parental duties |
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) was proper (repeated/incapacity causing child to lack essential parental care and inability to remedy) | CYS/Child: Father’s pattern of criminality and pending charges risk future incarceration making him incapable of providing essential care | Father: He was acquitted of the major incarceration-related charges, was not incarcerated when amended petition filed, had housing and complied with services; pending charges are speculative | Court: Denied termination under §2511(a)(2); pending charges alone insufficient to prove irremediable incapacity without clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether court erred by not considering parent‑child bond and foster bond (§2511(b)) | CYS/Child: Severing foster bond and the current bonding evidence favor termination | Father: Trial court need not reach §2511(b) if no §2511(a) grounds found | Court: Did not err—court properly refrained from §2511(b) analysis because it found no statutory grounds under §2511(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (courts must consider how incarceration factors into best-interest analysis and whether incapacity is remediable)
- In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (incarceration does not automatically prevent termination but parent must use available resources to maintain relationship)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court must examine totality of circumstances and not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (length of incarceration can be highly relevant to whether incapacity is remediable)
- In re Adoption of E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 2008) (repeated incarcerations can support termination where child lacked essential care for most of life)