In Re: Adoption of K.M.S. Appeal of: J.M.S. father, 1858 WDA 2015

Background

Child (born Oct. 2012) was taken into emergency custody Oct. 2013 after being left home alone; adjudicated dependent Nov. 2013. Mother and presumptive father consented to adoption; father did not.
Father had intermittent contact: visited while incarcerated and for a brief period after release in Mar. 2014, but then disappeared and was later incarcerated again (robbery) Oct. 2014; serving 3–10 years as of Mar. 2015.
Agency set reunification objectives: parenting instruction, mental-health and drug/alcohol evaluations and treatment, and stable housing. Father largely failed to comply (brief participation in May 2014 only).
Petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights filed Feb. 4, 2015; termination hearing Sept. 17, 2015; decree terminating Father’s rights entered Oct. 23, 2015. Father appealed.
Orphans’ court relied principally on 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity) and § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare), finding Father unable and unlikely to remedy incapacity, weak/no bond with Child, and risk of relapse/parole violations if released.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency/Orphans’ Court Argument	Held
Whether grounds under § 2511(a)(2) were proven (repeated/incapacity cannot be remedied)	Father: He will remedy problems—will attend boot camp, enter treatment, and comply with services once eligible; visited while incarcerated	Father had long history of noncompliance, criminality, substance abuse, lengthy incarceration, no stable housing or completed services	Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): clear record of repeated incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy
Whether incarceration alone improperly supported termination	Father: Court relied solely on incarceration; incarceration is an environmental factor beyond his control	Court: Incarceration is relevant and may be dispositive depending on circumstances; here it was combined with prior noncompliance and criminal conduct	Rejected Father’s claim—termination was not based solely on incarceration; incarceration plus conduct supported decision
Whether conditions leading to removal persist (§ 2511(a)(5)/(8)) and are remediable	Father: He will remedy conditions when released and sought to participate while incarcerated	Agency: Conditions persist (substance abuse, instability, criminality) and Father failed to complete objectives	Court’s findings support that removal conditions continued and were unlikely to be remedied (court relied on these factors among others)
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests (§ 2511(b)) — bond/needs & welfare	Father: Child is bonded (calls him Dad, excited for visits); terminating on environmental/incarceration grounds is improper	Foster mother & court: Child shows no parental bond with Father, treats him like a therapist during visits, refers to foster parents as “mommy/dad-da”; termination would favor Child’s stability	Court held termination serves Child’s needs and welfare; little/no parent–child bond and foster placement provides stability

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 re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental incarceration can be relevant/dispositive in § 2511(a)(2) analysis)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) best-interest framework: bond plus stability, safety, continuity)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity grounds include refusal and incapacity beyond affirmative misconduct)
In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussion of incarceration’s relevance to providing essential parental care)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (considerations for § 2511(b) analysis including continuity and effects of severing a bond)