In Re: Adoption of: D.L.L., Appeal of: S.F.F.
600 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Mother and Father are biological parents of D.N.L. (b. 2008) and D.L.L. (b. 2009). Children lived with Mother in Virginia until March 2014, when Father and Stepmother took custody after concerns about Mother’s methamphetamine and other drug use.
- Mother executed a notarized letter in March 2014 expressing intent to transfer full custody to Father; Children have lived with Father and Stepmother in Pennsylvania since 2014.
- A Westmoreland County custody order (Feb. 2, 2015) awarded Father sole legal and primary physical custody; Mother never enforced the order and contact since relocation was sporadic (last in-person visit July 2015; last contact April 23, 2016).
- Father and Stepmother placed Children in therapy in July 2014; therapy reportedly remedied bedwetting and behavioral issues; Children now thriving academically and in activities.
- Father and Stepmother filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (Oct. 25, 2016); the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b); Mother appealed only the § 2511(b) best‑interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father/Stepmother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) best‑interest standard | Termination would cause irreparable harm because a parent‑child bond exists; court erred by not requiring expert bonding testimony | Termination is in Children’s best interest: Mother’s contacts were sporadic, she had substance abuse issues, Children fear her, and they are bonded to Father/Stepmother | Court affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied; termination serves Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional welfare |
| Whether expert testimony was required to assess parent‑child bond | Expert testimony was necessary to prove absence of bond and harm from severance | Bond can be assessed from testimony and conduct; expert testimony not required | Court held expert testimony not required; factual record supported finding of no beneficial bond |
| Whether trial court abused discretion / misapplied law in weighing bond and permanence | Court failed to properly consider whether bond could be severed without harm | Court properly considered bond among other factors (safety, stability, continuity) and prioritized children’s need for permanence | No abuse of discretion; appellate deference to trial court credibility findings upheld |
| Whether claims under § 2511(a) were preserved on appeal | Mother raised general challenge | Mother did not develop arguments on § 2511(a) on appeal | Waived: appellate court declined to review § 2511(a) because Mother failed to brief it |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review standard; deference to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (termination standard and bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (affirming termination where record supports trial court findings)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (expert testimony not required to assess parent‑child bond)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) analysis may weigh bond, safety, continuity, and stability)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs indefinite delay for parent’s improvement)