In Re: J.M., Appeal of: J.R., Mother
1292 MDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 27, 2022Background
- Children J.M.R. (b. 2014) and J.C.M. (b. 2016) were placed in CYS custody in early 2019 after concerns of parental substance abuse, inadequate housing, lack of employment, and deficient parenting; they were adjudicated dependent.
- The children entered kinship care and in Feb. 2020 were placed with their maternal grandmother (a Georgia resident), who became the pre‑adoptive resource.
- Mother tested positive for a controlled substance during an early CYS drug test; she delayed a formal evaluation until Sept. 2020, attended only a few sessions, failed to comply with Georgia Hope’s random testing system, and was discharged for non‑attendance in Jan. 2021.
- CYS filed petitions to terminate parental rights (Sept. 2020), withdrew them at a permanency review when Mother briefly engaged, then reinstated the petitions in Jan. 2021; termination hearings occurred Apr.–May 2021.
- The orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), finding Mother failed to remedy the conditions that led to placement, had not maintained employment or completed services, and that the children had thrived with maternal grandmother.
- Mother appealed; the Superior Court affirmed the termination (4/27/2022), emphasizing the parents’ lack of remedial progress and the children’s need for permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYS/Orphans' Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYS proved statutory grounds to terminate under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care that cannot be remedied) | Mother: had secured housing in Georgia, had begun/was willing to participate in Georgia Hope treatment, maintained regular visits and calls, and was willing to be drug‑tested | CYS: Mother repeatedly failed to comply with court‑ordered services (drug testing/treatment, parenting classes, employment), was discharged for nonattendance, and did not remediate causes of placement over two years | Court found clear and convincing evidence under § 2511(a)(2); Mother failed to remedy underlying conditions; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination best serves the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b) | Mother: termination would harm bond; court should have ordered a formal bonding assessment; she plans to continue treatment and obtain housing after release from incarceration | CYS/Orphans' Court: children have established stability, care, and therapeutic/medical remediation with maternal grandmother; parental visits are more like supervised playdates and grandmother will facilitate continued contact even after adoption | Court held termination favored children’s best interests: children are thriving with grandmother, parental bond is not parental in nature, and severing legal ties would not be detrimental; § 2511(b) satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory framework for terminating parental rights)
- In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258 (Pa. Super. 2019) (elements of § 2511(a)(2): incapacity, effect on child, and inability/unwillingness to remedy)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (consideration of bond and impact of severing parental rights under § 2511(b))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2011) (no per se requirement for a formal bonding evaluation)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles—love, comfort, security, stability—are central to § 2511(b))
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (children’s need for permanency cannot be indefinitely subordinated to parental progress)