In Re: C.P.W., minors, Appeal of: C.C.
In Re: C.P.W., minors, Appeal of: C.C. No. 276 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 15, 2017Background
- Mother (C.C.) had four children at issue (born 2010–2014); long history of CYF involvement dating to 2002 for substance abuse, domestic violence, truancy, missed medical/educational care, and unstable housing.
- Children were adjudicated dependent in 2013; multiple services and court-ordered goals (dual-diagnosis treatment, anger management, domestic-violence therapy, parenting, random drug screens, housing) were repeatedly imposed but Mother’s compliance was minimal and inconsistent.
- Repeated incidents: positive THC screens, missed appointments, threats to CYF workers, arrests, episodic homelessness, leaving children with unknown caregivers, and domestic-violence allegations involving Father.
- Interactional and psychological evaluations (Dr. Terry O’Hara) found children showed secure attachments to foster parents and limited/weak responsiveness to Mother; Dr. O’Hara expressed concern about returning children to either parent.
- CYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights; trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); Mother appealed only the § 2511(b) determination.
- Superior Court affirmed, deferring to trial court credibility and finding termination served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs (stability, structure, permanency). Application to correct GAL/counsel designation denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYF/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination met §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare) | Termination based on parents’ failures (faults); court failed to adequately weigh harm of severing bonds and Dr. O’Hara’s caution about negative effects and open adoption | Children show stronger bonds to foster parents; need stability, structure, permanency outweighs any potential detriment from severing parental ties | Affirmed: §2511(b) satisfied — benefits of adoption and stability outweigh potential harm; parental bonds not sufficient to prevent TPR |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by relying on parental noncompliance | Mother argued court improperly used fault-based analysis and discounted late/partial progress | Court relied on longstanding minimal compliance, missed treatment/tests, and expert interactional findings showing weak parent-child bonds | No abuse: factual findings supported; credibility determinations deferred to trial court |
| Whether lack of appointed counsel for children (post-L.B.M.) requires relief | Mother raised L.B.M. to argue representation issue (GAL vs. counsel) | Trial court had GAL (attorney) representing children; court found children’s legal and best interests were adequately represented and not in conflict | Request to correct designation denied; no relief granted by Superior Court |
| Whether any other §2511(a) grounds need review on appeal | Mother did not preserve challenge to §2511(a) findings | CYF and trial court relied on clear-and-convincing evidence for statutory grounds | Waived on appeal; Superior Court only reviewed §2511(b) and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court findings in TPR matters)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis and bond consideration)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility determinations are free to accept or reject evidence)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports trial court even if record could support opposite result)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (parental love alone insufficient to prevent termination)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (needs and welfare analysis requires attention to parent–child bonds)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (where no evidence of bond, court may infer none exists)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond analysis may rely on caseworker/expert evaluations; formal bonding study not required)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (social worker testimony admissible for bond evaluation)