In re C.W.U.
33 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Child, born in April 2007, was the subject of CYF abuse/neglect proceedings beginning May 2007.
- Emergency Custody Authorization was signed March 27, 2009, placing Child in CYF foster care after Mother’s and Father’s arrests in Ohio.
- May 1, 2009, Child was adjudicated dependent; permanency plan required mental health, drug/alcohol, domestic violence services, and separate supervised visitation.
- Regular permanency reviews showed Mother making progress while Father made minimal or no progress; by mid-2010, CYF planned to seek termination of parental rights.
- CYF filed a Petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights on September 9, 2010; evidentiary hearing held December 10, 2010.
- Trial court denied termination of both parents, though it found Mother’s rights could be addressed under §2511(a)(5) and (8) but not §2511(b); Father did not present evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2511(a)(8) applicability to both parents | GAL emphasizes 12+ months removal and persisting conditions. | CYF contends the court should separately evaluate each parent under §2511(b). | Trial court did not terminate under (b) for either; we affirm for Mother, reverse for Father. |
| Whether terminating Mother’s rights under §2511(b) served Child’s needs and welfare | GAL argues bond with Mother weighs against termination. | CYF argues bond is insufficient to overcome needs/welfare and Dr. Rosenblum’s testimony supports termination. | Court did not terminate Mother; substantial evidence supported continued parental rights for Mother. |
| Whether terminating Father’s rights under §2511(b) was in Child’s best interests | CYF contends Father’s lack of involvement and bond justify termination; removal of Father would not harm Child. | Father did not testify; trial court incorrectly relied on not terminating Mother to justify keeping Father. | Court abused discretion in denying Father’s termination; termination warranted; reverse as to Father. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa.Super.2009) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super.2003) (12-month framework; persistence of conditions; best interests)
- In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa.Super.2003) (remedial efforts and evidence standard for §2511(a)(8))
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 393 (Pa.Super.2003) (court may consider totality of circumstances in needs and welfare analysis)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa.Super.2005) (intangibles and bond considerations in §2511(b) analysis)
- In the Interest of R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa.2009) (deference to trial court credibility determinations; close calls)
- In the Interest of R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa.2010) (reminds that appellate review defers to trial court on witness credibility)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa.Super.2010) (resolve conflicts in testimony; defers to trial court findings)