In Re: J.H. & S.M. Appeal of: G.H.
In Re: J.H. & S.M. Appeal of: G.H. No. 213 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Children (born 2009 and 2010) were adjudicated dependent in Tennessee in 2012 and placed with paternal grandmother (Grandmother) in April 2013 after removal from parents.
- Father lived in Tennessee, separated from Mother in 2013, visited the children sporadically (last seen October 2015) and contended he contacted Grandmother several times weekly in 2013–2014.
- Grandmother filed a petition in Pennsylvania (Lycoming County) on April 26, 2016 to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b).
- Trial court held a termination hearing on November 17, 2016 and entered a decree terminating Father’s rights on December 20, 2016; Father appealed.
- Trial court found Father failed to actively pursue custody or notify the court/Grandmother of his stable circumstances (employment, counseling, VA services, residence), that his contacts were insufficient to maintain parental duties, and that no beneficial parent-child bond existed that would be harmed by termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence shows Father had a settled purpose to relinquish parental claim under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) | Father: He attempted frequent contact with Grandmother (calls/texts 3–4x/week) and used available resources; Grandmother rebuffed him, obstructing his efforts. | Grandmother: Father failed to pursue custody, inform court of his stable status, or otherwise perform parental duties; his contacts were insufficient and belated. | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(1): Father’s efforts were inadequate and too late; he displayed a lackadaisical attitude toward parental responsibilities. |
| Whether termination satisfies the child welfare standard under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Father: Despite love for children, termination is not in children’s best interests because he is capable of parenting. | Grandmother & GAL: Children are thriving with pre-adoptive parents, lack bond with Father, and would not suffer by termination. | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(b): No meaningful parent-child bond existed; termination serves children’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (docket notation of Rule 236(b) notice triggers appeal period)
- In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (burden on moving party to prove termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (requirement to prove at least one § 2511(a) ground and § 2511(b) for termination)
- Burns v. Golson, 372 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (parental duty requires continuing interest and effort to maintain importance in child’s life)
- In the Interest of M.T., 101 A.3d 1163 (Pa. Super. 2014) (termination appropriate where children are thriving and bonded with pre-adoptive parents)