In Re: Adoption of L.M.W., Appeal of: S.W., mother
In Re: Adoption of L.M.W., Appeal of: S.W., mother No. 1912 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 21, 2017Background
- Mother has two daughters (b. 2012 and 2015). Children entered placement Aug. 13, 2015, after parents fled to California amid drug-related warrants; placement continued through the termination hearing.
- CYF set a permanency plan (mental health, drug/alcohol treatment, stable housing, compliance with criminal penalties) and contemporaneously notified Mother of a concurrent adoption goal.
- Mother has a long history of heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana use, multiple incarcerations and probation violations between 2015–2016, and inconsistent contact with CYF and the children. She spoke with the children once (Dec. 25, 2015) during the relevant period.
- Between Jan–June 2016 (after a jail release) Mother lived in Allegheny County, did not engage in treatment, admitted ongoing drug use, and made minimal effort to reestablish visitation or services. She reentered and exited various treatment programs, with a partial completion of a program shortly before the termination hearing but still requiring months of supervised aftercare.
- Children were bonded to and thriving with Paternal Grandmother (prospective adoptive parent); CYF, Father, and the guardian ad litem supported termination. Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (5) and (b). Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Opposing Argument (CYF/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) was proven (parental duties/settled purpose) | Mother claimed third-party obstruction (Paternal Grandmother, CYF) impeded contact and visitation, so she did not abandon duties | Mother failed to make reasonable, affirmative efforts to maintain contact; record shows volitional abandonment and drug use prevented engagement | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1): Mother’s conduct showed failure/refusal to perform parental duties |
| Whether §2511(a)(5) was proven (conditions causing removal continue; cannot remedy within reasonable time) | Mother argued ongoing participation in treatment at time of hearing meant she could remedy conditions | CYF presented mother’s prolonged noncompliance, repeated incarcerations, and that even with successful treatment discharge reunification would be months away—beyond reasonable time | Affirmed: even if assessed, evidence supported §2511(a)(5) termination |
| Whether trial court inadequately assessed parent–child bond under §2511(b) | Mother asserted a special bond existed and was not explored | Record showed no evidence of an existing parent–child bond; children were bonded to foster caregiver and thriving; bonding is one factor among many | Waived by inadequate briefing; on the merits, court reasonably found termination served children’s developmental, emotional, and stability needs |
| Whether any reversible error in credibility/factual findings | Mother argued factual findings ignored her testimony about attempts to contact and obstacles | Trial court credited CYF caseworker and record over Mother; findings supported by competent evidence | No abuse of discretion; factual findings sustained and dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative performance beyond passive interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (burden on petitioner to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of §2511(a) need be proven in addition to §2511(b) for termination)