In Re: C.F., A Minor, Appeal of: D.F.
674 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- Child born March 2013; Mother and infant tested positive for cocaine and methadone at birth. Father acknowledged paternity; both parents later had ongoing drug issues.
- Child removed from parents’ care in June 2013 after repeated positive drug tests by Mother; child adjudicated dependent and placed with kin (Mother’s step‑sister’s household) where he has lived essentially his whole life.
- CYF developed Family Service Plans (FSPs) for reunification. Father’s compliance was sporadic, largely because of repeated incarcerations (incarcerated soon after birth, released Feb 2014, incarcerated June 2014–Oct 2015). Visits totaled roughly 17 over three years.
- CYF filed a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights April 2015. Hearing held April 6, 2016; court admitted psychological evaluations (Dr. Rosenblum) and testimony from CYF caseworker and a parenting specialist; Father testified for himself.
- Trial court terminated parental rights of both parents under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). Father appealed, challenging reasonable efforts, admission of caseworker testimony, and the § 2511(b) best‑interests conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (CYF/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF made reasonable reunification efforts | CYF failed to maintain family contact plans during Father’s incarceration and failed to investigate Father’s post‑release home | Reasonable‑efforts not required to support TPR; CYF provided services and FSPs when possible | Claim fails — reasonable‑effort challenge is not a basis to invalidate TPR under controlling precedent |
| Admissibility of caseworker testimony on Father’s understanding of goals | Caseworker’s answer was speculative and should have been excluded | Question sought the caseworker’s observations; not speculative because Father never claimed misunderstanding | Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the testimony |
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare/bond) | Father asserted he maintained visits, participated in programs, has a bond, and can provide housing/support | Psychological evaluation and testimony showed child is strongly attached to pre‑adoptive kin, would be traumatized by removal; Father had minimal contact and failed to complete goals | Court’s § 2511(b) finding affirmed — terminating parental rights serves child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court factual and credibility findings in TPR cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and standard of review)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable‑efforts rule does not bar granting a TPR petition)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no bond inference when evidence of bond is absent)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (social workers/caseworkers may evaluate bonding; formal bonding evaluation not required)