In Re: E.K.J. Appeal of: A.W.
616 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- Child born in August 2014 while Mother was incarcerated; Petitioners (J.B. and M.B.) agreed to care for Child and brought him home on August 31, 2014.
- Temporary custody agreement (Sept. 12, 2014) and regular twice‑monthly prison visits occurred initially.
- Petitioners learned of Mother’s prior indicated child‑abuse finding and a prohibition on contact with minors; they stopped bringing Child to visits in July 2015, filed for custody, and were awarded physical and legal custody (Oct. 29, 2015).
- Lancaster court entered a risk‑of‑harm finding on March 23, 2016 that any contact must be supervised; Petitioners filed a second petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on Oct. 14, 2016.
- Termination hearing held Feb. 13, 2017; decree terminating Mother’s parental rights entered March 10, 2017; Mother appealed.
- Trial court found, based on texts, lack of visits, and Mother’s statements (including offering Child for adoption), that Mother evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish or failed to perform parental duties in the six months before the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) was improper because Petitioners’ conduct blocked Mother’s contact | Mother: Petitioners deliberately obstructed her ability to maintain the parent‑child relationship, so her lack of contact cannot support termination (In re J.S.M.'s Adoption principle). | Petitioners: They facilitated visits until learning of abuse history; they never blocked calls or pictures; supervised visits were available but Mother did not arrange a supervisor; contact (texts) was sporadic and insufficient. | Court: Affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1); Petitioners did not prevent contact; Mother’s limited texts and failure to pursue supervised visits showed settled relinquishment or failure to perform duties. |
| Whether termination should be reversed due to alleged legal error in relying on Petitioners’ conduct | Mother: The court improperly relied on Petitioners’ alleged interference. | Petitioners: Record shows they did not interfere; evidence supports findings. | Court: No legal error; findings supported by record; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in TPR matters)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appeal timing and notice of entry on docket)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for §2511(a)(1): six‑month conduct showing settled purpose or failure to perform duties)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (interpretation of §2511(a)(1) evidentiary standard)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative effort beyond passive interest)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same principle on passive interest)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration does not excuse parental duties; must use available resources to maintain relationship)
- In re McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (historical rule on incarcerated parents’ obligations)
- In re J.S.M.'s Adoption, 424 A.2d 878 (Pa. 1981) (lack of communication due to other parent’s deliberate conduct cannot be used to terminate rights)