In Re: Adoption of L.C., Appeal of: K.G., mother
690 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Child born Sept. 2011; CYS became involved May 17, 2012 after reports of domestic violence, unstable housing, financial problems and parental drug use when parents were teenagers.
- Child was adjudicated dependent and remained under CYS supervision; parents were repeatedly described as only minimally compliant with court-ordered permanency plans.
- Mother exhibited longstanding mental-health and anger-management issues; psychologist concluded she functioned emotionally like an early adolescent and required long-term intensive treatment.
- CYS and service providers (IFS, CASA, caseworkers) repeatedly offered programs ( anger/parent training, batterers group, drug/alcohol assessment, counseling); Mother failed to complete required services and maintained contact with the child’s father despite safety concerns.
- CYS filed petition for involuntary termination on Aug. 20, 2015; hearings held Nov. 23, 2015, Feb. 22 and Feb. 29, 2016. Trial court terminated parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(1) (settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties) | Mother evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish or failed to perform duties for the six months prior to petition due to prolonged minimal compliance and failure to complete services | Mother contends she intended to reunify and did not intend to relinquish parental rights | Held: Court found conduct over the relevant period showed failure/refusal to perform duties and/or settled purpose; §2511(a)(1) established — affirmed |
| Whether other statutory grounds (§2511(a)(2),(5),(8)) support termination | Conditions (incapacity, neglect, failure to remedy removal causes) persisted 12+ months; services exhausted and conditions unlikely to be remedied in reasonable time | Mother argued efforts and intent to reunify; challenged sufficiency | Held: Court found conditions continued, services exhausted, and termination would best serve child; alternative statutory grounds supported termination |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond and welfare) | Child’s safety, stability, and need to be free from domestic violence outweighed parental bond; mother’s deficits posed ongoing risk and prevented reunification | Mother argued bond and love for child, and intent to regain custody | Held: Court concluded the child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs favored termination; bond concerns outweighed by safety and stability needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (Adoption is statutory; strict compliance required)
- In re Adoption of J.F.D., 782 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 2001) (statutory compliance for termination/adoption proceedings)
- In re Adoption of W.C.K., 748 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2000) (procedural jurisdictional requirements)
- In re E.M.I., 57 A.3d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Adoption Act overview and standards)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review in termination appeals)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of §2511(a) necessary to affirm)
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard explained)
- In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental obligation to use available resources)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§2511(a)(1) requirements)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-line inquiry after establishing failure to perform duties)
- In re N.M.B., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole case history; not mechanical six-month application)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. Super. 1993) (consideration of parent–child bond)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond evaluation not always requiring expert)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration: child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may rely on caseworker testimony for bond analysis)