In Re: Invol Term of Parental Rights to M.A.W.,Jr.
617 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Mother (C.L.W.) had prior involuntary termination of parental rights to an older child and longstanding involvement with Berks County Children and Youth Services for unstable housing, mental health, substance issues, and abusive relationships.
- Child (M.A.W., Jr.) born March 2015; Agency obtained emergency custody due to concerns about Mother’s ability to parent and domestic violence by Father. Child adjudicated dependent; primary goal adoption.
- Court-ordered goals for Mother included parenting education, domestic violence and mental health treatment, casework services, stable housing, and income; aggravated circumstances found because of prior termination.
- Agency filed a termination of parental rights (TPR) petition on September 22, 2015. The Orphans’ Court found Mother made minimal progress during the relevant six-month period before the petition, had not completed services, and remained at high risk of returning to abusive relationships.
- At the March 2016 TPR hearing Mother requested a 3-month continuance to continue services; the court denied the request and, by decree entered March 15, 2016, terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b).
- Mother appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, the Superior Court concluded the appeal was frivolous, granted withdrawal, and affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/State (Respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (six months of conduct showing settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties) | Mother contended she showed effort and consistency with services and did not evidence a settled intent to relinquish or an ongoing failure to perform parental duties | Agency argued Mother failed to remediate conditions in the six months before the petition, did not complete services, and placed her needs above Child’s safety and permanency | Held: Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(1); credible findings supported that Mother failed to perform parental duties in relevant period and Child’s need for permanency outweighed Mother’s recent, limited improvements |
| Whether court abused discretion by consolidating hearings or denying continuance to allow further remediation | Mother argued consolidation and denial of continuance prevented full consideration of recent remedial efforts and strides post-petition | Agency argued post-petition efforts are generally not considered under § 2511(a)(1) and additional delay would harm Child’s need for permanency | Held: Court did not abuse discretion; post-petition efforts are generally excluded for § 2511(a)(1) analysis and allowing further delay was unreasonable given Child’s needs |
| Whether termination met the best-interest requirement under § 2511(b) | Mother did not expressly challenge § 2511(b) but argued overall that her progress favored preserving rights | Agency argued Child was bonded to foster family, had lifelong care there, and severing Mother’s bond served Child’s developmental and emotional needs | Held: Court agreed § 2511(b) satisfied; termination was in Child’s best interest due to established bond with foster family and need for a permanent, safe home |
| Whether appellate counsel properly sought to withdraw under Anders/Santiago | Mother’s counsel certified appeal frivolous and filed Anders/Santiago brief; Mother contested merits | Counsel asserted record review showed no nonfrivolous issues; Court must assess withdrawal motion before merits | Held: Superior Court found Anders/Santiago requirements met, concluded appeal frivolous, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial court’s observations and credibility determinations are afforded great deference)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court free to accept or reject evidence and make credibility determinations)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of § 2511(a))
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (interpretation of § 2511(a)(1) requiring six months of conduct showing refusal or failure to perform parental duties)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty defined as affirmative obligation to provide safety, security, and stability)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard in TPR proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief on appeal and counsel’s obligations)
- In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extension of Anders principles to TPR appeals)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for withdrawal when counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural point on addressing withdrawal before merits)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 (Pa. Super. 1997) (procedural authority cited in Anders-withdrawal context)