In Re: H.G. and J.G., Minor Children
In Re: H.G. and J.G., Minor Children No. 2014 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 11, 2017Background
- Lycoming County Children and Youth Services (the Agency) sought involuntary termination of Mother (K.D.) and Father (P.G.) rights to two sons, H.G. (b. 2007) and J.G. (b. 2008); children were adjudicated dependent after Mother voluntarily placed them with the Agency in Sept. 2015.
- Agency opened services earlier (2014) for homelessness and truancy; children lived in kinship care (maternal grandfather) then moved to a foster-to-adopt home in July 2016; foster parents were considering adoption but had not committed.
- Father had been largely absent since 2009 and relocated to New York for substance-abuse treatment; Mother had unstable housing, inconsistent visitation, and substance issues; both parents’ conduct met statutory grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (2) per the orphans’ court.
- Psychological evaluations found the boys emotionally bonded to Mother but in need of a permanent, stable home; one child had ongoing behavioral issues linked to inconsistent parenting.
- The orphans’ court denied termination of Mother’s rights under § 2511(b), citing concerns about lack of a committed adoptive home; it found termination of Father’s rights appropriate under § 2511(a) and (b) but withheld entry of that decree until Mother’s rights were also terminated.
- The Superior Court reversed: it held the orphans’ court erred legally and abused its discretion in denying termination of Mother under § 2511(b) for relying on the absence of a committed adoptive placement, and erred by conditioning termination of Father’s rights on termination of Mother’s rights.
Issues
| Issue | Agency's Argument | Parent/Others' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Mother’s rights is warranted under § 2511(a)(5) (conditions causing removal continue; termination serves child) | Agency: conditions persist, Mother cannot/will not remedy; termination best serves children | Mother: argued bond and lack of committed adoptive placement weigh against termination | Orphans’ court found § 2511(a)(5) elements met as to Mother; Superior Court did not need to decide this issue further because it agreed with (a)(1)/(2) findings |
| Whether termination of Mother’s rights is warranted under § 2511(a)(8) (12+ months removed; conditions continue; termination best serves child) | Agency: 12+ months elapsed; conditions remain; termination best serves children | Mother: bond and lack of adoptive commitment argue against termination | Orphans’ court found many § 2511(a)(8) elements met but reserved on best-interests; Superior Court again relied on (a)(1)/(2) support and did not need to resolve this further |
| Whether termination of Mother’s rights meets § 2511(b) (best interests; effect of severing bond) | Agency: bond present but experts (Mr. Anderson) conclude children need permanency; absence of committed adoptive placement is not required; termination serves children’s best interests | Orphans’ court/Mother: psychologist noted grief but opined children could recover; court denied under (b) because foster parents had not committed to adopt | Superior Court held the orphans’ court erred: reliance on lack of committed adoptive placement was legal error and its refusal to terminate was an abuse of discretion; termination ordered under § 2511(b) |
| Whether Father’s rights can be terminated independently of Mother’s | Agency: Father’s rights satisfy § 2511(a) and (b); termination may proceed even if Mother’s rights remain | Orphans’ court conditioned terminating Father’s rights on termination of Mother’s rights | Superior Court held it was legal error to require both parents’ rights be terminated together; directed termination of Father’s rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (courts must weigh bond but prioritize child’s need for permanency; adoption need not be presently contemplated)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bond is a major factor in § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (existence of bond does not preclude termination when parent cannot meet child’s needs)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court should consider safety, continuity, and the child’s need for stability in best-interest analysis)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (same; emphasize continuity of relationships and attachment to foster family)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights convert to child’s right to proper parenting when duties not fulfilled)
- In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (agency need not prove grounds against both parents before terminating one parent’s rights)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (permanency necessity and child’s interests govern termination decisions)