In Re: Adoption of: K.K., a minor, Appeal of: K.K.
850 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Child (born Sept. 2015) was opiate-dependent at birth, experienced severe withdrawal, remained hospitalized until late Nov. 2015, and has lived in a pre-adoptive foster home since discharge.
- CYS filed dependency; the juvenile court found Child dependent and found an aggravated circumstance relieving CYS of reunification efforts because Mother and Father had involuntary terminations of parental rights to other children in June 2015 (unchallenged on appeal).
- Mother had a history of long-term drug use, inconsistent treatment; her last positive drug test was December 2015; she began methadone treatment and claimed compliance by the termination hearing.
- Visitation with Child ceased in November 2015 after an approved family member who initially supervised visits moved away; Mother had limited physical contact with Child.
- CYS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (filed Jan. 8, 2016); the Orphans’ Court terminated rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b) on May 17, 2016; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in applying aggravated circumstances in considering termination | Mother argued the court improperly relied on aggravated-circumstance findings in evaluating termination | CYS relied on prior involuntary terminations and Mother’s substance history to show aggravated circumstances and no required reunification/services | Court affirmed use of aggravated-circumstance context; prior terminations and ongoing substance issues justified no reunification and termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether evidence showed Mother could/would remedy causes for Child’s placement (§2511(a)(2) third prong) | Mother claimed she was in treatment, employed, living with family, and could remedy conditions | CYS showed long history of unsuccessful treatment, recent positive tests, lack of stable housing/consistent services, and prior terminations of other children | Court held clear-and-convincing evidence that causes could not/would not be remedied; termination under §2511(a)(2) proper |
| Whether termination served Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs (§2511(b)) | Mother argued bonding and parental love weigh against termination | CYS and guardian ad litem argued Child had no meaningful bond with Mother, is bonded and thriving in pre-adoptive home, and termination would not harm Child | Court found §2511(b) satisfied: no significant bond with Mother, Child’s needs best served by termination and adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial-court credibility and factfinding in dependency/termination cases entitled to deference)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and analysis of bonding)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no requirement of expert testimony for bonding analysis; parental love alone does not bar termination)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, and stability in §2511(b) analysis)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (child’s right to proper parenting and a permanent, healthy, safe environment can outweigh parental constitutional rights)