In Re: Adoption of: J.G. Appeal of: J.G.
In Re: Adoption of: J.G. Appeal of: J.G. No. 1979 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 25, 2017Background
- Father (J.G.) and Mother (A.B.) are biological parents of two children: J.G. (b. 2010) and A.G. (b. 2014). The Agency became involved in 2011 due to parental criminal activity and Mother’s heroin use.
- The children were placed with Maternal Grandmother (and later formally with Maternal Grandparents) after incidents including parental drug use in front of the children, Father’s overdose, and domestic violence; Mother voluntarily relinquished parental rights at the TPR hearing.
- Father has a history of repeated incarceration (multiple jail terms 2015–2016 tied to drug use and related criminal conduct) and continued substance abuse and domestic violence problems, which limited his contact and parenting role.
- The Agency’s family service plan required Father to obtain stable housing and employment, complete parenting evaluation/skills, secure safety from domestic violence, remain drug-free, and maintain visitation; Father failed to make meaningful, timely progress on these goals.
- On October 27, 2016 the Agency filed for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b) and sought to change permanency goal to adoption; after an evidentiary hearing the court changed the goal to adoption and involuntarily terminated Father’s rights under § 2511(a)(2) and (b). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency/Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether goal should be changed to adoption | Father asserted he made substantial progress on plan goals and could meet remaining goals if given more time (e.g., 30 days) | Agency argued Father had not remedied underlying problems (incarceration, drug use, domestic violence) and adoption best served children’s needs | Court held goal change to adoption appropriate; Father had not shown sufficient progress |
| Whether TPR was justified under § 2511(a)(2) (incapacity causing lack of parental care and unremedied causes) | Father claimed remediation efforts and bonds with children; urged more time to comply with plan | Agency showed repeated incapacity linked to drug use and incarcerations, minimal meaningful contact, failure to remedy issues | Court held clear and convincing evidence satisfied § 2511(a)(2); Father’s incapacity and failure to remedy justified TPR |
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) (best interests of children) | Father argued existence of parental bond and potential harm to child if rights terminated; noted no formal bonding assessment performed | Agency and court emphasized children’s stability with grandparents, positive care, and limited meaningful contact with Father | Court held termination served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional welfare under § 2511(b) |
| Whether more time or additional procedures (e.g., bonding study) required before TPR | Father sought additional time and assessment | Court found testimony and record sufficient; bonding study not required as matter of law | Court denied additional time/assessment and affirmed termination and goal change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding in TPR appeals)
- In the Interest of R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (permanency goal-change and TPR hearings may be combined; focus on child’s best interests)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (deference to trial court’s opportunity to observe parties across proceedings)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties require affirmative, consistent provision of safety, security, and stability)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 472 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements of § 2511(a)(2): repeated incapacity causing lack of essential parental care and unremedied causes)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.3d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§ 2511(b) analysis considers intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability)