In Re: I.J.K., a Minor
15 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Mother had long-standing heroin and marijuana use; Agency intervened after positive drug tests for both children and arrests for drug-related offenses and child endangerment.
- I.J.K. (born May 2014) was removed at birth after Mother tested positive; adjudicated dependent and placed with foster parents R.C. and K.C.
- I.D.M. (born June 2012) was initially placed with Father-1 but later removed after reports Mother had unsupervised care and was arrested for drug use; she was ultimately placed with the same foster parents as I.J.K. in Sept. 2015.
- Agency developed repeated family service plans requiring drug treatment, NA attendance, counseling, stable housing, supervised visits, and compliance with probation; Mother did not complete recommended remediation and continued to use drugs.
- Agency petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (filed Aug. 11, 2015); hearings were held Oct. 7 and 13, 2016; trial court terminated rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).
- Trial court relied on psychologist David Ray’s evaluation that Mother was self-centered, lacked responsibility, had attenuated/unstable bonds with the children, and that terminating parental rights would serve the children’s needs; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination meets children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Termination would harm children; trial court failed to properly consider emotional bond and upheaval from severance | Testimony and evaluation show weak/attenuated bonds; foster parents provide stability and adoption is in children’s best interests | Held: Affirmed — termination meets children’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b) |
| Whether termination under § 2511(a)(8) was proven by clear and convincing evidence | CYS failed to prove conditions continued to exist and that termination was appropriate under (a)(8) | Conditions (drug use, inability/unwillingness to remedy) persisted; testimony supports statutory grounds | Held: Court affirmed (Mother only contested (a)(8), but record supports termination and appellate court also found grounds under other (a) subsections) |
| Whether challenges to § 2511(a)(1) and (2) were preserved | Mother did not challenge these in briefing | Agency relied on evidence of continued failure to perform parental duties and incapacity/neglect | Held: Mother waived challenge to (a)(1) and (2); Superior Court affirmed termination under any valid § 2511(a) ground |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate courts should not second-guess trial court credibility findings)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parent conduct then child’s best interests)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need only agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a) to affirm termination)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs and welfare inquiry includes love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (termination justified despite some parental bond if placement with parent contrary to child’s best interests)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming termination despite some bond when separation had been long and bond attenuated)