In Re: Adoption of S.A.K., a Minor
In Re: Adoption of S.A.K., a Minor No. 1621 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Child S.K. (born Nov. 2011) was placed in foster care after an emergency removal in August 2013 following concerns about Mother's mental health, homelessness, lack of supervision, and drug use. Mother was briefly 302-committed.
- The Agency's reunification goals for Mother were stable housing, stable income/employment, and treatment for mental-health and substance-use issues. Mother repeatedly changed residences (≈14 locations), had intermittent employment, and sporadic cooperation with services.
- Mother tested positive intermittently for amphetamines and marijuana; she declined some drug testing and disputed mental-health diagnoses and treatment recommendations. She discontinued counseling and medication adherence after mid-2015.
- The Agency petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and § 2511(b). The Orphans’ Court initially terminated rights in May 2015; the Superior Court vacated and remanded on a notice-of-counsel issue. On rehearing (July 2016) the Orphans’ Court again granted termination. The Superior Court affirmed the decree on appeal.
- The courts found Mother lacked credibility, failed to remedy the conditions that led to removal within a reasonable time, had not sustained stable housing or employment, abandoned mental-health treatment, and that the child had a stronger, primary bond with the foster mother who provided stability.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Orphans’ Court abused its discretion by terminating Mother’s rights despite her claimed independent improvements (housing, employment, mental stability) after the prior termination order | Mother contends she achieved stable housing, employment, and mental stability without Agency help and thus termination was an abuse of discretion | Agency argues Mother’s improvements were unverified, recent/short-lived, and she abandoned mental-health treatment and services, so conditions persist | Held for Agency — no abuse of discretion; competent evidence supported termination |
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity that cannot or will not be remedied) was satisfied | Mother argues she had made progress and can parent safely | Agency contends Mother’s ongoing mental-health issues, noncompliance, instability, and substance use prevent safe parenting and are unlikely to be remedied | Held: §2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether § 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) (continued conditions after 6/12 months in placement) were satisfied | Mother argues recent improvements show conditions changed and reunification is possible | Agency argues child had been in placement well over 6 and 12 months, conditions persisted despite services, and Mother could not sustain stability | Held: §§2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) satisfied; termination in child’s best interests |
| Whether termination would meet child’s needs under § 2511(b) (bond and best interests) | Mother stresses her love/visits and family connections | Agency emphasizes child’s strong bond with foster mother, daily care provided by foster mother, and need for permanence and stability | Held: §2511(b) satisfied — bond to foster mother outweighed attenuated bond to Mother; termination best served child’s developmental, physical, and emotional welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (framework for two-step §2511(a)/(b) analysis and statutory interpretation)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (§2511(a)(2) can be satisfied by incapacity, neglect, or refusal and parental duties require affirmative performance)
- Geiger v. (In re Geiger), 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (articulating the three-part test for §2511(a)(2): repeated/continued incapacity, resulting lack of essential care, and inability/unwillingness to remedy)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for termination under §2511(a)(8) and the 12-month remediation window)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§2511(b) considerations: love, comfort, security, stability and bond analysis)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties defined in relation to child’s needs; parental rights yield to child’s right to a stable, healthy permanent home)