In Re: Adoption of C.M.W., a Minor
1022 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Child (born Jan 2015) was placed with maternal great-aunt and great-uncle (the Petitioners) days after birth under a Maryland safety plan; Petitioners obtained primary physical custody (Mar 2015).
- Father (R.C.W.) was incarcerated at conception and remained incarcerated through the proceedings; earliest parole projected Oct 2016 and would remain on parole until 2023.
- Petitioners filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights on Aug 13, 2015; hearing occurred Feb 19, 2016; orphans’ court entered termination order May 26, 2016.
- Orphans’ court found Father never met the Child, made no contact with the Petitioners (letters, calls, visits), though he had contact with Mother and access to the Petitioners’ attorney contact information.
- Court concluded Father failed to perform parental duties for the requisite six-month period and that termination served the Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs because the Child was bonded to Petitioners and had no bond with Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s parental rights may be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) for failure/refusal to perform parental duties | Petitioners: Father failed/refused to perform parental duties for 6+ months before petition; he never met the Child or contacted Petitioners | Father: Incarceration alone insufficient; he participated in naming, received updates/photos via Mother/relatives, lacked Petitioners’ contact info | Held: Affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1); court found clear-and-convincing evidence of failure to perform duties and access to resources to contact Petitioners/attorney but no effort made |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under §2511(b) | Petitioners: Child is thriving and bonded with Petitioners; no bond with Father; Petitioners can provide permanent, stable adoptive home | Father: Termination unnecessary; would call when Child older; claims some involvement via Mother/relatives | Held: Affirmed under §2511(b); Child’s need for permanence/stability and lack of bond with Father supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) and (b))
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate affirmance if any §2511(a) ground and §2511(b) satisfied)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (clear-and-convincing evidence requirement for §2511(a)(1))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs indefinite delay for parent improvement)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (incarceration does not relieve parental duties; parent must use available means to maintain relationship)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§2511(b) best-interest factors include bond, safety, continuity, and stability)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider intangibles like love, comfort, security, and stability in best-interest analysis)