In Re: Adoption of: H.D.L., a Minor
In Re: Adoption of: H.D.L., a Minor No. 938 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 24, 2017Background
- Mother and Father had four children; OCY removed the children on October 30, 2015, after unsafe home conditions, Mother’s arrest, and an adult found overdosing in a child’s bedroom. Children were placed together in a pre‑adoptive foster home.
- The family had prior OCY involvement since 2011 and prior removals. Mother struggled with substance use, depression, anxiety, unstable housing, and incomplete treatment.
- Mother repeatedly failed to complete Family Service Plan (FSP) goals: comply with probation, obtain/complete drug and alcohol treatment, maintain sobriety, and secure suitable housing. Mother missed or refused drug tests and missed many visits.
- OCY filed petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights in November 2016 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (a)(8). A two‑day termination hearing occurred February 1–2, 2017.
- The Orphans’ Court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds to terminate Mother’s rights under § 2511(a)(2) and (a)(8), and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b); court entered orders changing goal to adoption and terminating parental rights.
- This appeal followed; the Superior Court affirmed on the basis of the Orphans’ Court opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | OCY/Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(8) (conditions continuing after 12+ months) | Mother argued she could remedy conditions and disputed sufficiency of evidence that conditions continued | OCY argued children had been out of care >12 months and Mother’s substance use, noncompliance, and incarceration persisted, making conditions unchanged | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(8) satisfied; children removed >12 months and conditions continued to exist |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/incapacity causing lack of parental care not remediable) | Mother challenged finding of incapacity/refusal and argued she could address issues | OCY presented evidence of repeated failure to remedy drug use, treatment noncompletion, missed visits, and incarceration causing inability to parent | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied; repeated incapacity/refusal caused lack of essential parental care and likely not remediable within reasonable time |
| Whether termination would serve children’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b) (bonding and best interests) | Mother argued bond/attachment or that termination was not in children’s best interests | OCY/foster parents showed children attached to foster family; minimal bond with Mother (many missed visits; youngest called foster mother “mom”) | Affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied; children’s need for stability favored termination |
| Whether Frye hearing issue preserved/argued on appeal | Mother raised Frye issue in statement of questions but did not advance argument on appeal | OCY noted waiver | Waived: Superior Court deemed Frye claim waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and two‑step § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review principles for termination orders)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (focus on parent conduct under § 2511(a) and then § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration’s relevance to § 2511(a)(2) and best interests inquiry)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§ 2511(a)(8) twelve‑month framework)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties defined; affirmative obligation to maintain relationship)