230 A.3d 341
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- C.B., born May 2017, was removed July 2017 after Father admitted violently shaking the infant and parents failed to seek immediate medical care; child placed with paternal grandmother (T.M.).
- Blair County Children, Youth and Families (CYS) filed a petition on November 14, 2018 seeking involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5), (a)(8) (and other subsections); Father’s rights were terminated earlier after he relinquished/was convicted.
- At the time the petition was filed Mother’s criminal charges related to the incident were pending; a forensic evaluator (Dr. O’Hara) could not complete an interactional/bonding assessment while charges were pending and Mother was constrained to fully supervised visitation by bail conditions.
- The record showed Mother completed recommended services (parenting programs, substance‑use treatment), was compliant with supervised visitation, and obtained employment after the petition was filed; CYS raised concerns about housing, contact with Father, and Mother’s insight into the incident.
- The trial court denied CYS’s termination petition on September 5, 2019, concluding CYS failed by clear and convincing evidence to satisfy the applicable subsections of § 2511; the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the pendency of criminal charges alone did not establish the statutory grounds for termination and affirming denial without prejudice to refiling after a fuller record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(5) is satisfied (6+ months removed; conditions continue; parent cannot/will not remedy) | CYS: Child had been placed >6 months, underlying abuse and pending criminal charges plus Mother’s lack of stable housing/employment showed conditions continued and reunification was not imminent. | Mother: She complied with services, completed programs, maintained visits, and pending charges constrained assessment/reunification; CYS lacked evidence of ongoing conduct that led to removal. | Held: Denied. Court found the pendency of criminal charges (and related visitation limits) alone insufficient; Mother completed services and maintained relationship; CYS failed to prove the conditions continued by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether § 2511(a)(8) is satisfied (12+ months removed; conditions continue) | CYS: Child had been placed >12 months and conditions (abuse/charges, mother’s instability) persisted, so termination was warranted. | Mother: Same as above — progress in services and constrained opportunities due to pending charges; resolution of charges would permit further evaluation/reunification. | Held: Denied. Court held that § 2511(a)(8) is not satisfied by pendency of criminal charges alone; CYS did not show reunification was not imminent and failed to present clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) supports termination | CYS: Termination would best serve the child’s need for permanence/stability given severity of injuries and long placement. | Mother: Child bonded with caregiver but Mother has maintained contact and completed services; termination premature absent fuller evaluation after charge resolution. | Held: Not reached as a basis to terminate. Trial court considered § 2511(b) but, because § 2511(a) grounds were not proved, termination was denied; appellate court affirmed and left open CYS’s ability to seek termination later with a fuller record. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards of review and fact-credibility deference in termination cases)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial court deference; parental termination review principles)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/§ 2511(b) analysis)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (definition of clear and convincing standard; parental duties)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for § 2511(a)(8))
- In re I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2014) (reunification must be imminent when assessing whether removal conditions continue)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (permanency expectations within 18 months)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (incarceration/constraints alone do not automatically justify termination)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011) (criminal adjudication not required to assess remediation/insight)
- Spanier v. Freeh, 95 A.3d 342 (Pa. Super. 2014) (staying civil proceedings while criminal charges are pending can be appropriate)