In Re: Adoption of: I.M. Appeal of: R.M., Father
932 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Child (I.M.) born May 2016; Franklin County CYS obtained emergency protective custody shortly after birth and Child remained in foster care.
- Father (R.M.) acknowledged paternity but had criminal history (assault/domestic violence), parole conditions prohibiting contact with Mother, and periods of incarceration during the case.
- CYS implemented a permanency plan requiring medication management, parental fitness assessment (including parent/child observation), stable housing, compliance with parole, NOVIS, drug/alcohol evaluation, random screens, and visitation.
- Father attended visits but failed to complete the parental fitness assessment (missed/rescheduled and never confirmed), could not substantiate ongoing mental health medication management, and did not obtain stable, independent housing; assertions about bed‑bug remediation were unverified.
- CYS filed petitions (April 12, 2017) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5) and (b) and to change the permanency goal to adoption; the orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights and changed the goal to adoption (May 3, 2017); Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (CYS/Orphans' Ct) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (settled purpose or failure to perform parental duties) | Father argued he had remedied conditions, complied with permanency plan, and that limitations (resources) hindered further progress | Father repeatedly failed to complete key tasks (parental fitness assessment), verify mental‑health treatment, maintain parole compliance, and secure stable housing; credibility issues undermined his claims | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(1) — father failed/refused to perform parental duties |
| Whether termination meets § 2511(b) (child's developmental, physical, emotional needs and welfare) | Father claimed strong relationship with Child and harm from severing contact | Child bonded primarily with foster parents; foster home provided medical care, stability, and permanency; severing Father’s parental rights would not cause irreparable harm | Court held termination was in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) |
| Whether the orphans’ court abused discretion in changing permanency goal from reunification to adoption | Father contended he could remedy conditions quickly and that goal change was premature (Child <1 year in placement) | Father had not made required progress on family service plan; Child had lived with foster family since birth and needed permanence; reunification not feasible in reasonable time | Court affirmed goal change to adoption as not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellate review should overturn factual/credibility findings | Father urged that record did not support findings | Trial court had discretion to credit witnesses and reject Father’s testimony; findings supported by evidence of noncompliance and instability | Court declined to disturb trial court’s credibility findings and affirmed judgment |
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 TPR cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need only agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b))
- In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (§ 2511(a)(1) requires either settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform duties)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole history, not apply six‑month mechanistically)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent must use all available resources and exercise reasonable firmness)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (post‑abandonment contact and parent’s explanation considered after § 2511(a)(1) finding)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may accept or reject witness testimony and make reasonable inferences)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) considerations include bond analysis plus safety, stability, continuity)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for goal change is abuse of discretion)
- In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors for goal change under Juvenile Act § 6351(f))