In Re: E.H., A.B., and C.B. Appeal of: J.H.
In Re: E.H., A.B., and C.B. Appeal of: J.H. No. 1481 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Mother (J.H.) is biological parent of three children (E.H., A.B., C.B.); children were declared dependent in 2013 and placed in protective custody in 2014 and placed together in foster care in October 2014.
- Agency (Huntingdon County CYS) repeatedly received reports of Mother leaving children unsupervised and leaving them unattended in vehicles; safety concerns led to supervised-only visits since October 2014.
- Records and expert testimony documented Mother’s mental-health diagnoses (anxiety, depression, personality disorder), reported substance use, refusal of prescribed medication, and chronic untruthfulness; Mother made minimal progress with services.
- Children, particularly E.H., exhibited trauma and distrust of adults; therapist testified the child trusts only the foster father and suffers PTSD-like symptoms.
- CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on January 8, 2016; after bench hearings, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights on August 12, 2016. Mother appealed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYS/Orphans' Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Adoption Act §2512(b) | Petition lacked the specific averment that petitioner will assume custody "until such time as the child is adopted," depriving court of jurisdiction | CYS was clearly custodian and stated custody in petitions; J.F.D. is distinguishable where petitioner lacked custody | Court: No jurisdictional defect; petitions met §2512(b) requirements |
| Expert testimony on credibility | Allowing agency expert to opine that Mother lies prejudiced Mother because she later testified and could not rebut credibility opinion | Expert may opine on observations and psychological effects; bench court may weigh credibility; any error harmless given overwhelming evidence | Court: Admission proper; no abuse of discretion; harmless if error |
| Grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) | Mother argues findings were deficient, based on evidence outside statutory period, and conditions could be remedied | Orphans’ court found repeated incapacity, ongoing conditions (mental health, substance use, unsafe parenting) not remedied despite services and long removal period | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Best interests under §2511(b) / parental bond | Mother claimed insufficient findings about parent-child bond and best interests | Court prioritized child’s developmental, emotional needs; bond was unhealthy and severing it served children’s safety and permanence | Court: Termination in children’s best interests under §2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (explains deference to trial court factfinding in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (burden on petitioner to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of J.F.D., 782 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 2001) (petition jurisdiction defect where petitioner lacked custody and failed to aver custody retention until adoption)
- Kozak v. Struth, 531 A.2d 420 (Pa. 1987) (expert may not usurp factfinder by commenting improperly on credibility)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (section 2511(b) requires focus on child’s needs; permanency cannot be delayed indefinitely)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (emotional needs and welfare include intangibles like love, comfort, security; consider parent-child bond)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (utmost attention to effect of severing parental bond under §2511(b))