47 Pa. D. & C.5th 134
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- D.R.S.C., born Nov. 7, 2003, has been in foster care for significant periods (Nov 2010–Aug 2011; Apr 2013–present) and was adjudicated dependent in 2013.
- Chester County CYF provided extensive services to both parents over many years for substance abuse, domestic violence, mental-health, housing, and parenting deficiencies, with minimal progress toward reunification.
- CYF changed the permanency goal from reunification to a permanent living arrangement; CYF then filed petitions (July 10, 2014) to terminate parental rights of mother (Stephanie Corum) and father (Timothy Corum).
- Evidence showed continuing parental incapacity: mother’s longstanding emotional instability and lack of insight; father’s substance-abuse, criminal history and a DUI after proceedings began.
- The child has a bond with both parents but has thrived in foster care and is adoptable; the court found the parental bonds unhealthy and termination would better serve the child’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) are met | CYF: parents failed to perform parental duties for >6 months, their incapacity continued, conditions persist >6/12 months despite services, so statutory grounds are met | Parents: attended visits and some services; argue CYF failed to prove clear and convincing evidence of grounds | Held: CYF met clear and convincing evidence as to (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) — termination permitted |
| Whether termination would serve child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare under §2511(b) | CYF: severing unhealthy parental bonds will better serve child’s needs and enable adoption/permanency | Parents: emphasize child's bond with mother and some improvement (father’s AA participation) — argue harm from severing bond | Held: Court found termination best serves child’s needs and welfare; bond was unhealthy and maintaining parental rights would harm child |
| Whether continued parental involvement would allow timely permanency (the “clock of childhood”) | CYF: ongoing delay harms child’s development; permanency must be achieved promptly | Parents: suggested improvement and ongoing contact justify preservation of rights | Held: Court applied Supreme Court precedent emphasizing need for timely permanency and concluded termination appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Burns, 474 Pa. 615, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (parental duty defined relative to child’s needs; affirmative performance required)
- In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590, 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (best interests of child, not parental fault, guide termination inquiry)
- In re Adoption of Hamilton, 379 Pa. Super. 274, 549 A.2d 1291 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural framework for §2511(a) then §2511(b) analysis)
- In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (courts must weigh harm of severing bond and the child’s need for timely permanency — “clock of childhood”)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (existence of a bond alone does not preclude termination where bond may stem from abuse)
- In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (preserving parental involvement can foreclose adoption; agency need not show a pending adoption to seek termination)