In Re: Adoption of: Baby L.
In Re: Adoption of: Baby L. No. 1827 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 11, 2017Background
- Child born May 2015; mother placed child with a pre-adoptive couple (Prospective Adoptive Parents) in May 2015 and told Father the baby was stillborn for ~7.5 months.
- Father learned Child was alive in late December 2015 and of the prospective adoption in early January 2016; he sent a letter asserting parental rights on January 21, 2016.
- Father was incarcerated (convicted Feb 9, 2016) on assault convictions with a sentence of 5–15 years; at the termination hearing ~3.5 years remained on his minimum term.
- Prospective Adoptive Parents filed for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(6) and (b); hearings occurred Sept. 19 and Oct. 5, 2016.
- Guardian ad Litem and forensic psychologist testified Child is bonded with and thriving in Prospective Adoptive Parents’ home; Father had not provided financial support, visits, or gifts after learning Child was alive.
- Orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights under §§ 2511(a)(2) and (b); Father appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Prospective Adoptive Parents’ / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s rights could be terminated under §2511(a)(2) given his incarceration and lack of notice of adoption | Father: Mother’s deceit and Prospective Adoptive Parents’ failure to timely notify him impaired his ability to parent and caused his nonparticipation | Court: Father’s lengthy incarceration caused repeated and continued incapacity that precluded providing essential parental care; Mother’s misconduct did not excuse Father’s failure to remedy incapacity | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination would meet the child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond and stability) | Father: Termination would sever a bond that could have developed with visitation; he was denied opportunity due to mother’s lies | Court: Evidence showed no meaningful bond between Father and Child; Child is bonded to and flourishing with Prospective Adoptive Parents; terminating rights serves Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs | Court affirmed termination under §2511(b) |
| Whether procedural or notice defects (Prospective Adoptive Mother/counsel failed to notify Father) invalidated termination | Father: Failure to be notified timely by adoptive parents/counsel prejudiced his ability to act | Court: Father received actual notice in late Dec. 2015/Jan. 2016, and his subsequent incarceration and lack of remedial ability were dispositive | Court rejected notice argument and affirmed decree |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under §2511(a)(2) when it prevents timely reunification)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (concurring opinion cited on when length of incarceration warrants termination)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (if no evidence of parent–child bond, court may infer none exists)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (grounds for termination include incapacity and refusal to perform parental duties)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under §2511(a)(2))
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (best-interest factors include intangibles: love, comfort, security, stability)