In Re: D.L.B., minor child, Appeal of: T.L.S.
166 A.3d 322
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child born May 2016; placed in foster care six days after birth because of prenatal drug exposure. Mother had longstanding substance/mental-health issues and later died while incarcerated. Child has an older sister already in foster care and pre-adoptive placement.
- Father was incarcerated at Child’s birth, released June 20, 2016, but showed minimal involvement: supervised visits were sporadic, late, and demonstrated poor parenting skills; visits were terminated September 1, 2016.
- Father repeatedly violated parole, tested positive for Suboxone and THC without prescriptions, failed to engage in ordered treatment or services, and was re-incarcerated December 2016 with a maximum release date in 2018.
- CYF filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights December 9, 2016. Trial court conducted hearings and terminated Father’s rights January 11, 2017 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b).
- On appeal Father challenged sufficiency as to abandonment and incapacity and argued § 2511(a)(5) shouldn’t apply to an incarcerated parent; the Superior Court affirmed termination based on § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | CYF’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate for abandonment (§ 2511(a)(1)) | Father abandoned child by failing to perform parental duties and minimal contact | Evidence insufficient to prove abandonment given incarceration and limited opportunities | Court did not rely on (a)(1); affirmed termination on other grounds (see held below) |
| Sufficiency to terminate for incapacity (§ 2511(a)(2)) | Father’s repeated incapacity/refusal (parole violations, substance use, failure to engage services, no custody ever) left child without essential parental care and conditions were not remedied | Father argued incarceration and lack of contact did not establish irreparable incapacity | Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (court relied on this ground) |
| Best interests / needs and welfare (§ 2511(b)) | Child bonded to stable pre‑adoptive foster family; adoption would provide needed stability, love, and security | Father argued bond/parental ties weighed against severance | Held: Termination met § 2511(b); severing rights served child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
| Applicability of § 2511(a)(5) to incarcerated parent | CYF argued statutory criteria met (conditions causing removal persisted; services unlikely to remedy) | Father argued (a)(5) should not apply where parent was incarcerated at removal | Held: Court did not base affirmance on (a)(5); affirmed on (a)(2) and (b). Court declined remand for separate counsel for child under L.B.M. because child’s interests were adequately represented by the GAL in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and focus on bifurcated § 2511(a)/§ 2511(b) analysis)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated termination analysis; focus on parental conduct then child’s needs)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental incapacity may include refusal or inability to perform duties)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no evidence of a parent–child bond supports inference that none exists)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court not required to use expert bonding evaluation; social workers may opine)
- In the Matter of the Adoption of A.M.B., 812 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2002) (child’s life cannot be put on hold while parent remedies conditions)