In Re: Adoption of M.D.J., a Minor
1178 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Two minor boys (born 2010 and 2012) were placed in OCY custody in June 2015; mother voluntarily consented to termination; OCY sought involuntary termination of father’s rights and goal change to adoption.
- OCY filed petitions Dec. 6, 2016; hearings occurred Feb. 15 and Mar. 17, 2017; trial court entered decrees terminating father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (8) and (b) and changed permanency goal to adoption.
- Testimony and caseworker reports showed father missed the majority of offered visits, failed to follow Family Service Plan directives (parenting classes, mental health evaluations, urine testing), and admitted current alcohol and marijuana use.
- Father testified he loves the children, has stable housing and employment, and claimed past criminal convictions were remote and he had improved.
- Trial court found father’s ongoing substance use, lack of cooperation with services, minimal contact/interaction with the children, and inability to remedy conditions supported termination; court found stronger bonds with foster/pre‑adoptive parent and no parental bond worth preserving.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | OCY / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was proper | Father: he made efforts—stable housing/employment; loves children; no settled intent to relinquish | OCY/Trial Ct: father failed to perform affirmative parental duties, ongoing substance use and noncompliance show incapacity/refusal | Affirmed—court relied on noncompliance, substance use, and lack of parenting performance to support termination |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) termination was proper | Father: prior convictions are stale; current drug/alcohol use is minimal; he’s remedied causes and can parent | OCY/Trial Ct: repeated incapacity/neglect, ongoing substance use, failure to complete services, and long foster placement show conditions cannot be remedied | Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence of incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy |
| Whether §2511(a)(8) termination was proper | Father: conditions leading to removal have been addressed; termination not in children’s best interests | OCY/Trial Ct: children have special needs, need stability; father hasn’t met conditions; adoptive resource exists | Affirmed—court found continued neglect and that termination serves children’s needs |
| Whether §2511(b) best‑interest test was satisfied | Father: strong paternal love and some visitation show bond worth preserving; no expert bond eval required | OCY/Trial Ct: limited affection/interaction, inconsistent contact, foster parent provides loving, structured home; severing paternal ties won’t harm children | Affirmed—court found no parental bond worth preserving and termination best serves children’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for §2511 review)
- In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity discussion)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition of parental duties and expectations)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluation not always required)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child affection alone does not prevent termination)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (parental love alone insufficient to preclude termination)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permanency and not delaying child’s well‑being)