In Re: C.M.C., A Minor, Appeal of: C.L.C.
In Re: C.M.C., A Minor, Appeal of: C.L.C. No. 1460 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Child born March 2009; maternal grandfather obtained custody in 2010; in 2014 BCCYF removed the child from maternal grandfather and placed him in foster care, later changing goal to adoption and placing child with paternal grandmother in Alabama (June 2015).
- BCCYF filed an involuntary termination petition July 31, 2015 under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(8) and (b). A combined twelve‑month permanency review and termination hearing began August 18, 2015; Mother arrived late, and on the record her counsel elicited statements that Mother was willing to voluntarily relinquish parental rights.
- Superior Court vacated the resulting voluntary termination decree in a prior opinion (C.M.C. I) because Mother had not filed a written voluntary petition and was denied the statutory 10‑day deliberation period; remand instructed the trial court to either accept a proper voluntary petition or proceed on the pending involuntary petition.
- On remand the court proceeded with BCCYF’s involuntary termination petition; the court admitted prior testimony about Mother’s limited participation in reunification services, canceled/shortened visits, refusal of parenting classes, and cessation of services in Feb. 2015 when Mother requested adoption as the goal.
- Evidence showed Mother had no contact with Child after a June 3, 2015 “closure visit”; Child moved to Alabama and had bonded with paternal grandmother, improved speech and social skills, and was described as thriving in his placement.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCCYF’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(8) were met | Mother argued she severed ties with maternal grandfather, wants a chance to parent, and would allow child to remain with paternal grandmother if that’s the child’s wish | Conditions that led to placement persisted: Mother did not remedy parenting deficiencies, stopped reunification services, reduced/cancelled visits, and failed to address concerns during the 12‑month statutory period | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(8): BCCYF proved continued existence of removal conditions after 12 months and termination served child’s needs and welfare |
| Whether termination met the best‑interests standard under §2511(b) | Mother said she wanted an opportunity to parent and disputed that severing would harm the child because she had not been involved | BCCYF argued child had bonded with adoptive placement, was thriving, and would benefit from permanency and stability | Court found no abuse of discretion: child’s developmental, emotional, and stability needs favored termination |
| Procedural sufficiency of prior voluntary termination | Mother relied on her on‑the‑record statements at 2015 hearing as a voluntary relinquishment | BCCYF relied on the on‑record colloquy and grandmother’s consent for post‑adoption contact | Superior Court previously vacated the voluntary decree (C.M.C. I) because statutory 10‑day waiting period and written petition requirements were not met; remand required proceeding on involuntary petition, which was then affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511: parent conduct then child’s needs and welfare)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re R.K.Y., 72 A.3d 669 (Pa. Super. 2013) (§2511(a)(8) requires that conditions leading to placement continue to exist after twelve months)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court may affirm termination if any one subsection of §2511(a) and §2511(b) are satisfied)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (affirming standards for evaluating termination petitions)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (emphasis on love, comfort, security, and stability in §2511(b) analysis)