In Re: Adoption of: G.F., a Minor
In Re: Adoption of: G.F., a Minor No. 1161 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- Child G.F. born June 2014; mother died May 2015; paternal father (Father) was incarcerated for most of the child’s life.
- Cumberland County CYS placed Child with maternal aunt E.B. (informal kinship caregiver) in mid‑2015; E.B. has been primary caretaker and seeks to adopt.
- CYS filed petitions (May 2016) to change permanency goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing June 15, 2016 (caseworker, kin caregiver, Father, GAL witness). Court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b) and changed goal to adoption.
- Father appealed, arguing incarceration alone cannot justify termination, he used available resources while incarcerated to maintain the relationship, the conditions that caused removal were remedied or imminently remediable, and termination/goal change were not in Child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration alone supports termination under § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties) | Father: incarceration alone is not dispositive; he used prison resources (visits, letters, parenting class) to maintain a relationship | Court: decision based on totality of circumstances (long history of incarceration, limited bonding, lack of caregiving, uncertain release), not incarceration alone | Affirmed: record supports (a)(1); incarceration considered among other factors |
| Whether Father’s incapacity is incurable under § 2511(a)(2) | Father: will be able to parent in very near future (parole imminent) | Court: parole uncertain, no housing/job/childcare plans, long history of incarceration, child needs timely permanency | Affirmed: (a)(2) satisfied; incapacity cannot be remedied in timely manner |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Father: loves child and desires custody; argues prospective ability to provide care | Court/CYS: Child has strong bond with E.B., stable home and medical oversight; Father’s bond limited and parenting untested | Affirmed: termination in Child’s best interest due to stability, bond with prospective adoptive relative |
| Whether goal change to adoption under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 was appropriate | Father: opposes goal change given asserted efforts to maintain relationship and near‑term plans | Court/CYS: goal change appropriate based on placement stability, progress toward permanency, feasibility of adoption by E.B. | Affirmed: goal change to adoption supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review defers to trial court fact/credibility findings in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration is a factor that can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2); courts must examine use of prison resources to maintain relationship)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (incarceration alone not dispositive; examine totality of circumstances and parent’s use of available prison resources)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (satisfying any one subsection of § 2511(a) permits consideration of § 2511(b))
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus shifts to child under § 2511(b))
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standards for post‑abandonment contact to reestablish parent‑child relationship)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty is affirmative and beyond financial support)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2) termination)
- In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity can support termination)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (emotional needs and welfare include love, comfort, security, stability)