In Re: C.M.K., Appeal of: CYS
203 A.3d 258
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- C.M.K., born 2011, was removed from parents' care in 2014 after reports of substance abuse and domestic violence; she has remained in a pre‑adoptive foster home with her half‑sister for over four years.
- Father (J.K.-T.) was criminally incarcerated in 2014 for assaulting Mother and was ordered to complete substance‑abuse treatment, drug screens, and domestic‑violence/anger‑management counseling and engage in family therapy and visits.
- CYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights in January 2016 and again in February 2017; hearings occurred across 2016–2018.
- The orphans’ court denied termination as to Father under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), focusing on domestic‑violence remediation and finding insufficient proof Father “cannot or will not” remedy his deficiencies.
- The Superior Court reviewed the full certified record and found contrary evidence: repeated noncompliance with drug screens, a positive cocaine test, public evidence of intoxication, delayed and inconsistent participation in family therapy, and Father’s refusal to attend therapy with the child.
- Superior Court reversed the denial as to § 2511(a)(2), vacated the order, and remanded for the trial court to address the § 2511(b) best‑interests analysis (bond, emotional needs, safety, foster placement, sibling relationship).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYF) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF proved grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | Father’s repeated and continued incapacity (substance abuse, therapy noncompliance, missed drug screens, inconsistent family therapy) caused the child to lack essential parental care and cannot/will not be remedied | Father asserted remediation efforts, participation in some services, and engagement in family therapy show willingness/ability to remedy problems; court below emphasized lack of later incidents of domestic violence | Reversed trial court: record shows persistent, unremedied incapacity; CYF met clear and convincing standard under § 2511(a)(2) |
| Whether trial court properly limited focus to domestic violence and ignored other conditions (e.g., substance abuse) | CYF argued full record, including substance‑abuse noncompliance and therapy refusal, must be considered when assessing incapacity | Trial court focused primarily on domestic‑violence remediation and therapist uncertainty about irreparability | Held trial court erred by not considering full record; substance abuse and noncompliance support termination under § 2511(a)(2) |
| Whether remand was required for § 2511(b) analysis | CYF: once § 2511(a)(2) established, court must determine child’s needs/welfare and bond issues | Father: (implicit) court below did not reach § 2511(b) because it rejected (a)(2) — no need to proceed | Superior Court remanded for trial court to make factual findings under § 2511(b) (bond, safety, sibling/foster relationships) |
| Standard of review for termination appeals | CYF: deferential standard but trial court must base findings on whole record; appellate court will reverse if trial court ignored material evidence | Father: rely on trial court's fact‑finding and credibility determinations | Superior Court applied standard and concluded trial court’s factual conclusions about compliance were not supported by record and thus constituted error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and general rules for parental‑rights termination)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then § 2511(b) analysis; bond and best‑interests focus)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental incapacity grounds include unremedied conditions; parents must make diligent efforts)
- In Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1998) (elements required for § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be subordinated indefinitely to parental progress)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (on remand trial court must evaluate tangible and intangible parent‑child bond factors)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may weigh child’s safety and the stability provided by foster parents)