In Re: Adoption of A.D.C., Appeal of: W.C.C.B.
In Re: Adoption of A.D.C., Appeal of: W.C.C.B. No. 323 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Child A.D.C. entered Agency custody after safety concerns; Mother later consented to adoption (Jan 4, 2016); Agency filed petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (TPR Petition) on March 17, 2016.
- Father had intermittent visitation and consistent transportation problems; several service providers and the Agency caseworker testified about missed visits and efforts (or lack thereof) to provide transport.
- Agency moved visits from Father’s home to provider offices due to unspecified safety/house condition concerns; Father disputes some of those factual bases.
- At the TPR hearing, Agency introduced certain dependency orders but did not introduce Child Permanency Plans (CPPs) dated Mar. 4, 2015 and Feb. 4, 2016 into evidence.
- Trial court denied the TPR Petition and denied confirming Mother’s consent to adoption, reasoning that (1) Agency’s failure to provide coherent transportation assistance undermined reunification efforts and (2) termination of Mother’s rights would create a parental vacuum absent termination of Father’s rights.
- Agency appealed, arguing the trial court impermissibly relied on evidence outside the record (the CPPs) without giving Agency an opportunity to respond; Superior Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Father/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court improperly considered evidence outside the record (CPPs) | Trial court relied on CPPs not admitted at TPR hearing and used them to reach adverse factual conclusions without giving Agency chance to respond | Trial court used CPPs to evaluate whether transportation was designated Father’s responsibility and when Agency provided assistance; trial court believed CPPs informed credibility | Court: Trial court impermissibly relied on CPPs outside the record; vacated and remanded so parties may introduce/contest CPPs |
| Whether Agency met burden to terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2),(5),(8) and (b) | Agency argued statutory grounds satisfied given repeated inability to remedy conditions and failure to complete required services | Trial court found Father made efforts, that transportation failures (exacerbated by removal of home visits) inhibited completion of services, and Agency’s assistance was sporadic | Remanded: Superior Court did not decide merits; trial court’s factual weighing disturbed by use of extrinsic CPPs, so further proceedings required |
| Whether court should confirm Mother’s consent to adoption under § 2504 | Agency argued consent was valid and should be confirmed despite Father’s TPR status | Trial court denied because it refused to terminate Mother’s rights where Father’s rights remained intact — would create parental vacuum absent new adoptive relationship | Vacated and remanded for reconsideration after trial court reevaluates TPR matter; prior basis for denial no longer dispositive |
| Whether references to prior custody orders and dependency docket constituted improper off-record consideration | Agency asserted trial court cited custody/dependency materials outside TPR record | Trial court’s limited references to a 2012 custody order and dependency orders actually relied on admitted Exhibit WCCB‑3 | Court: References to custody order and dependency orders were harmless; only CPP reliance was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court may not consider evidence outside the record)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same principle reaffirmed)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review in parental termination cases; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Wood v. Tucker, 332 A.2d 191 (Pa. 1975) (due process requires opportunity to confront and cross‑examine adverse evidence)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process protections for evidentiary presentation)
- In re B.E., 377 A.2d 153 (Pa. 1977) (Adoption Act requires termination of parental rights be connected to plan for adoption; courts avoid creating state‑created orphans)
- In re Adoption of J.D.S., 763 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2000) (termination tied to protecting stability of new adoptive family)
- In re Adoption of L.J.B., 18 A.3d 1098 (Pa. Super. 2011) (public policy against state‑created orphans)