In re Adoption of J.N.M.
177 A.3d 937
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Children (born 2005 and 2008) were removed from Mother by WCCB in October 2014 due to deplorable home conditions, domestic violence, outstanding warrants, and Mother’s drug abuse; they remained in foster care (~3 years) and were living in a stable pre-adoptive foster home at the time of TPR hearings.
- Mother had unstable housing, untreated substance use and mental health problems, multiple arrests, repeated incarcerations, and failed to complete treatment; at sentencing in June 2017 she faced 4½–10 years’ imprisonment.
- Mother’s contact with Children was inconsistent (attended under half of offered visits); visits sometimes showed her incoherent or under the influence and included suicidal statements in front of the children.
- WCCB filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (Feb 2017); orphans’ court held hearings in June 2017 and terminated Mother’s rights on June 30, 2017.
- The orphans’ court found statutory grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) and also found termination served the children’s best interests under § 2511(b); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (WCCB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) grounds were proven | Mother argued she might become available via early-release/boot-camp and thus § 2511(a)(2) wasn’t met | WCCB pointed to prolonged unavailability, failure to remedy conditions, ongoing criminality and incarceration | Waived on appeal; alternatively court would affirm under § 2511(a)(8) so no reversible error on (a)(2) |
| Whether § 2511(a)(8) grounds were proven | Mother disputed that conditions persisted or that termination best served the children | WCCB showed >12 months’ removal, persistently unremedied conditions, and that termination served children’s needs | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(8) |
| Whether court erred by terminating without a formal bonding evaluation | Mother argued lack of formal bonding assessment and expert testimony on grief made termination improper | WCCB relied on social-worker and psychologist interviews/observations (no formal bonding test required) | Court held no requirement for formal bonding evaluation and relied permissibly on lay and expert observations |
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) (children’s best interests) and whether SPLC was preferable | Mother argued strong bond, ambivalence about adoption, and that SPLC (a less-drastic alternative) should have been pursued to avoid grief | WCCB emphasized unhealthy role-reversal, children’s stability/happiness in foster home, risk to safety and need for permanency | Court found bond unhealthy, children stable in foster home, therapeutic grief manageable, and termination served developmental/ emotional needs; SPLC not raised below and would provide less permanence, so court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and guidance on weighing bonds and best interests)
- 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) (affirmance may rest on any one valid § 2511(a) ground)
- In re M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434 (Pa. Super. 2017) (§ 2511(a)(8) does not require proof of willingness/ability to remedy conditions)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) factors; bond is one of many considerations)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (termination inquiry: avoid extreme emotional consequences to child)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no statutory requirement for formal bonding evaluation)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluation may be unnecessary or harmful; court may rely on observations)
- In re M.M., 106 A.3d 114 (Pa. Super. 2014) (safety and stability can outweigh detriment from severing bond)