In Re: Adoption of: L.S.K., a Minor
In Re: Adoption of: L.S.K., a Minor No. 2938 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Mother filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to two minor sons so Stepmother could adopt them; trial court held a hearing and denied the petitions.
- The children lived primarily with Mother and Stepmother; Father lived in another county and had sporadic contact after the parties separated, with the last visit in August 2015.
- Father paid child support intermittently, had a history of drug addiction but entered treatment in July 2015 and was in a suboxone program and counseling at the time of the hearing.
- Father testified he attempted contact (calls, arranging visits when given dates) but Mother sometimes did not provide scheduling information after moves; Father had not attended school events or filed for custody.
- The guardian ad litem recommended termination, but the trial court credited Father’s testimony that he had made minimal but sufficient efforts and found no settled purpose to relinquish parental rights within the statutory six‑month window.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s conduct met 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties) | Father had essentially no contact for 10 months, only sporadic prior contact, delayed discovery, never contacted the children during continuance, and children wanted no contact — grounds for termination | Father made sufficient, credible minimal efforts to maintain contact, was undergoing treatment for addiction and is now sober and able to parent | Trial court (affirmed): Father’s minimal efforts and recent steps toward sobriety did not establish a settled purpose to relinquish or total failure to perform parental duties under § 2511(a)(1) |
| Whether the trial court erred in ignoring the GAL’s recommendation to terminate | GAL supported termination after interviews; court should follow GAL recommendation | GAL’s opinion is advisory only; court is not bound to follow it | Court considered the GAL’s view but was not bound by it; no error in weighing evidence and reaching a contrary conclusion |
| Whether trial court applied an incorrect standard (i.e., saying Father did “just enough”) | Court applied too lenient a standard and failed to require diligent, reasonable firmness from Father | Court legitimately assessed credibility and found Father acted minimally but sufficiently; sobriety efforts relevant to parental role | Appellate court: No abuse of discretion—trial court properly applied legal standards and credited testimony |
| Whether appellate reversal is warranted based on alleged record omissions or procedural delays | Continuance and delay prejudiced children's interests and enabled Father to avoid responsibility | Continuance was procedural; statutory six‑month lookback is tied to filing date and evidence showed contact within that period; father’s rehab efforts relevant | Appellate court: No manifest unreasonableness or legal error; affirmed denial of termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (burden on petitioner to prove grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (§ 2511(a)(1) may be satisfied by either settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties; court’s three lines of inquiry)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties require affirmative performance, continuing interest, and reasonable firmness)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2015) (only if § 2511(a) grounds are met must court analyze § 2511(b))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 889 A.2d 92 (Pa. Super. 2005) (guardian ad litem’s recommendation is advisory)