In Re: Adoption of C.L., a minor, Appeal of: J.S.
In Re: Adoption of C.L., a minor, Appeal of: J.S. No. 1693 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- C.L., born September 2014, was placed with Washington County CYS at birth and adjudicated dependent; she has never met Father.
- Father (J.S.) has a long criminal history including convictions for indecent assault and corruption of minors (Tier III sex offender) and later convictions for concealing whereabouts of children; he has been incarcerated since 2014 and remains in custody during these proceedings.
- CYS obtained court orders requiring Father to complete drug/alcohol and mental-health evaluations, a psycho-sexual assessment, and recommended treatment; Father provided no documentation of completing court-ordered services.
- CYS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b); a hearing was held July 22, 2016; the orphans’ court granted termination on October 3, 2016.
- Father appealed, arguing CYS failed to prove (a)(1) and (a)(2) grounds; the Superior Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2), finding Father’s continued incapacity due to incarceration and unremedied issues left the child without essential parental care and that the conditions would not be remedied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for involuntary termination exist under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal causing child to be without essential parental care and causes cannot be remedied) | Father’s longstanding incarceration, criminal history, failure to complete court-ordered services, and inability to provide care caused C.L. to lack essential parental care and the causes will not be remedied | Father argued he participated in programs in prison (sex-offender program, counseling, attempted parenting class), is rehabilitated, and is willing/able to parent upon release | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied — Father’s continued incarceration, criminal history, and lack of evidence of completed services showed incapacity causing lack of essential care and no credible proof of remedying conditions |
| Whether § 2511(a)(1) (settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim/refusal to perform parental duties) established | CYS argued Father's conduct and noncompliance supported termination under (a)(1) as well | Father disputed failure to perform duties, citing rehabilitation efforts and willingness to parent | Not reached substantively — court affirmed based on (a)(2) (only one subsection needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration is a factor and can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity grounds include refusal or inability, not limited to affirmative misconduct)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of § 2511(a) need be satisfied to affirm termination)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (child’s right to proper parenting and permanent, safe environment can outweigh parental rights when duties not fulfilled)