In Re: Adoption of: E.H., III Appeal of: M.N.
826 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Child (b. Feb 2016) was removed from mother’s care March 4, 2016; child adjudicated dependent April 18, 2016. Father established as biological parent by DNA April 29, 2016.
- Franklin County CYS filed a petition March 13, 2017 to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights; orphans’ court held a hearing April 11, 2017 and entered a termination decree April 12, 2017. Father appealed.
- CYS presented testimony from a parenting-program director and a caseworker that Father showed inconsistent parenting skills, safety lapses, poor hygiene, lack of life-skills, and unwillingness to change harmful lifestyle habits.
- Father participated in a parenting program Aug–Oct 2016 but was discharged for lack of progress; his home was cluttered, infested with pests, and deemed unsafe for the child; Father failed to remediate conditions or credibly show he was searching for safe housing.
- The orphans’ court found Father incapable of meeting the child’s basic needs and that the incapacity would not be remedied; the court also found the child was bonded to foster parents, not Father, and that terminating rights served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated and continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care that cannot be remedied) | CYS: Father’s persistent parenting deficits, discharge from program, unsafe housing, and unwillingness to change satisfy (a)(2) | Father: Housing and income (Social Security) were beyond his control; he made efforts to participate in services and search for housing | Held: Affirmed. Court found Father incapable of parenting, unable/unwilling to remedy deficits, and housing problems not beyond his control, satisfying (a)(2). |
| Whether terminating rights would serve child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b) | CYS: Child is bonded to foster parents, lacks parental bond with Father; termination permits permanence and stability | Father: Child is too young to understand adoption; giving Father more time would not harm child and could promote reunification | Held: Affirmed. Court found minimal parental bond with Father, strong bond with foster mother, and termination is in child’s best interests. |
| Whether environmental factors (housing, income) preclude termination under § 2511(b) | CYS: Court may consider safety and stability; environmental factors do not bar termination when parent can remedy but does not | Father: Lack of appropriate housing due to low income and landlord’s failures puts conditions beyond his control so rights should not be terminated | Held: Court rejected defense. Father’s efforts and explanations were not credible; pest/repair issues resulted from his failure to maintain safe home; termination allowed child permanence. |
| Whether bond-analysis required or dispositive under § 2511(b) | CYS: Bond analysis is one factor among many; safety and stability can be dispositive | Father: Alleged bond and potential harm from severance justify more time for reunification | Held: Court properly weighed bond among other factors and concluded severing would not harm child; termination appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity grounds may include refusal and inability)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs indefinite delay for parental maturation)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) analysis—bond is a factor among many including child safety and stability)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider continuity of relationships and effect of severing any bond)