In Re: I.S.C.P. a/k/a I.C.P., a Minor
In Re: I.S.C.P. a/k/a I.C.P., a Minor No. 3125 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Child (born Aug. 2013) tested positive for unprescribed oxycodone at birth; Bucks County Children & Youth (Agency) implemented a safety plan and subsequently obtained emergency/shelter care orders placing Child in Agency custody in August 2014. Child was adjudicated dependent about six weeks later.
- Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights of Mother and Father on May 4, 2016 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; this appeal concerns Mother (D.A.P.). Father did not appeal.
- Family Service Plan (FSP) objectives for Mother: complete substance abuse and mental-health evaluations and follow recommendations, maintain suitable housing, and participate in regular visitation.
- Agency caseworker testified Mother failed to complete substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, lost Section 8 housing and a Red Cross shelter placement, was ineligible for supportive housing absent custody, and was inconsistent or discontinued in visits (no visit since Feb. 2016; visits stopped for threats to foster mother).
- Child has lived with the same foster mother since birth, is thriving developmentally, and the foster mother is a pre-adoptive resource; the trial court found no beneficial parent–child bond with Mother that would be harmed by termination.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on Aug. 8, 2016; Mother appealed. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court conducted independent review and affirmed the termination under § 2511(a)(2) and (b), and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was an abuse of discretion or error of law | Mother argued termination was improper (raised via counsel’s Anders submission claiming appealable issues) | Agency argued it proved statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and termination served Child’s best interests | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity) and § 2511(b) (child’s best interests); no abuse of discretion found |
| Whether Agency proved repeated and continued incapacity/neglect that left Child without essential parental care and could not be remedied | Mother contended she could remedy conditions (implied challenge to sufficiency) | Agency showed failure to complete treatment, lack of stable housing, and discontinued visitation supporting unremedied incapacity/neglect | Court held statutory elements of § 2511(a)(2) were satisfied; causes would not be remedied |
| Whether termination would be contrary to Child’s developmental, physical, or emotional welfare | Mother argued termination would harm any existing bond | Agency and guardian ad litem pointed to Child’s stable, thriving foster placement and lack of beneficial bond with Mother | Court held termination met § 2511(b): no evidence of a beneficial bond with Mother; foster placement provided stability and pre-adoptive resources |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought withdrawal under Anders and whether any non-frivolous issues were overlooked | Mother was notified of rights to retain counsel or raise issues pro se | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements and provided required client notice | Court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw after independent review; found no preserved non-frivolous issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and need to balance child’s ticking clock; deference to trial court)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis: parental conduct under § 2511(a) then child’s best interests under § 2511(b))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond analysis: where no evidence of bond exists, inference of no bond reasonable)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (courts may emphasize child’s safety, stability, and foster placement benefits in § 2511(b) analysis)