In re Adoption of S.P.
47 A.3d 817
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Father incarcerated since 2004 for the shooting death of his stepfather; Child born in 2005 while Father imprisoned.
- Mother involved with CYS; Child declared dependent in 2005 due to Mother's THC positive test and domestic incident in Child's presence.
- Child lived in foster care with various relatives; Mother relinquished parental rights in 2008; goal changed to adoption the same year.
- Trial court found Father repeatedly incapable of providing essential parental care due to incarceration; soon-to-be parole prospects discussed but uncertainty remained.
- Superior Court initially vacated trial court’s termination order, then en banc reversed again, creating a split on whether incarceration alone suffices.
- Court now holds incarceration can be a determinative factor under § 2511(a)(2) when incapacity cannot be remedied, affirming termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review applied by appeals court | CYS argues Superior Court misapplied standard and substituted its own findings. | Father argues Superior Court correctly reviewed for abuse of discretion and law | No error in standard application; Superior Court erred by misapplying McCray to § 2511(a)(2). |
| Whether incarceration alone can support termination under § 2511(a)(2) | Incarceration is a factor; cannot alone mandate termination; must show incapacity cannot be remedied. | Incarceration can be determinative given incapacity and future remedial prospects. | Incarceration can be determinative when repeated incapacity cannot be remedied and harms child’s welfare. |
| Relation of incarceration to best interests under § 2511(b) | Even with termination under (a)(2), best interests must reflect child needs and bond with others. | Termination serves child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs given incapacity and lack of bond. | Trial court acted within discretion re: best interests; termination aligns with Child’s welfare. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590 (1986) (incapacity and abandonment considerations; parental duties emphasized)
- In re: Adoption of Baby Boy A., 512 Pa. 517 (1986) (affirming termination where incarcerated father failed to fulfill duties)
- In re: M.T.T.'s Adoption, 467 Pa. 88 (1976) (abandonment/parental duties; resources in prison considered)
- In re: Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (incarceration considered in termination analyses under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re: E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 2008) (termination supported by repeated incarceration and lack of essential care)
- In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; deferential review in termination cases)
- In re: R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (plurality discusses incarceration length; plurality questions absolute rule)
- In re Adoption of S.P., — Pa. — (2011) (en banc Superior Court decision analyzed in furtherance of 2511(a)(2) impact)