In Re: J.T.M., a Minor Appeal of: J.M.
1448 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- Mother (H.H.) and Father (J.M.) separated in 2011; Father had a history of violent, controlling behavior and a final PFA after he entered Mother’s home and turned off the furnace.
- Father had minimal involvement with the children (last in-person contact April 2011); he was incarcerated for periods and did not maintain contact, gifts, letters, or regular support.
- Mother remarried (Step‑Father D.H.), who has acted as the children’s father, is involved in daily care, and sought to adopt.
- Mother and Step‑Father filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on Feb 25, 2016; the court held a hearing June 28, 2016 and entered decrees terminating Father’s rights on Aug 8, 2016.
- Father appealed, arguing the court erred under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) and §2511(b) (best interests). The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) grounds exist (six‑month conduct: settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties) | Mother/Step‑Father: Father failed to perform parental duties for years (no contact, minimal/inconsistent support, no gifts/letters, didn’t pursue required evaluations) | Father: Claimed desire to parent, blamed PFA/Incarceration and others for lack of contact; filed a custody modification after release | Held: Court found clear & convincing evidence of failure to perform duties; termination under §2511(a)(1) affirmed |
| Whether incarceration alone precludes termination | Mother/Step‑Father: Father’s incarceration did not excuse lack of affirmative steps to maintain relationship | Father: Argued limited ability while incarcerated and asserted efforts after release | Held: Incarceration not dispositive; father failed to take available steps while incarcerated and after release, so grounds still met |
| Whether §2511(b) (best interests / child welfare) favors termination | Mother/Step‑Father: Children have stability, emotional bond with Step‑Father, are thriving; termination furthers needs and welfare | Father: Claimed he wants to resume parental role and opposes termination | Held: Children have no meaningful bond with Father, are bonded to Step‑Father; termination is in children’s best interests |
| Adequacy of evidence and abuse of discretion on appeal | Mother/Step‑Father: Trial record and credibility findings support termination | Father: Argued trial court abused discretion / misapplied law | Held: Superior Court concluded trial court’s factual findings were supported by competent evidence; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and §2511(b) bonding analysis)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner and review scope in termination cases)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (§2511(a)(1) framework and three‑part inquiry)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (incarceration does not automatically preclude termination; duties not tolled)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (parental duties defined—communication, support, affirmative involvement)