In Re: K.B., a minor, Appeal of: N.A.
830 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background:
- Children (born 2005 and twins 2012) were removed in July–Aug 2014 after being found unsupervised and parents failed a safety plan and drug tests; they remained in foster/kinship care since adjudication on Aug 26, 2014.
- Agency required parents to complete drug/alcohol treatment, mental-health evaluations, random testing, and parenting education; Mother’s compliance was inconsistent from 2014–2016.
- Mother had multiple arrests/incarcerations (probation violations, refusal/failure of drug tests) and tested positive for drugs as late as May 2016; she also spent time living intermittently with the children and in foster home visits which ceased when she left.
- Agency filed petitions to terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) on June 20, 2016; the court held hearings in Sept–Dec 2016.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence satisfying the statutory grounds, particularly § 2511(a)(8): children removed for over 12 months, the conditions leading to removal persisted, and termination would serve children’s needs and welfare.
- Mother appealed only § 2511(a) determinations (arguing against findings under subsections (a)(1),(a)(2),(a)(5)/(a)(8)); Superior Court affirmed on Oct 6, 2017.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claims or refused/failed to perform parental duties (§ 2511(a)(1)) | Mother: she participated in services and visits, showing intent to parent and performance of duties | Agency: mother’s drug relapse, inconsistent compliance, and criminal history show failure to perform duties | Court: affirmed termination (trial court findings accepted); termination warranted under alleged subsections |
| Whether children lacked essential parental care due to mother’s incapacity/neglect (§ 2511(a)(2)) | Mother: compliance with programs and positive interactions with children show capability | Agency: ongoing substance and mental-health issues prevented provision of essential care | Court: affirmed that conditions preventing adequate care continued and supported termination |
| Whether conditions leading to removal continued and termination served children’s needs/welfare (§ 2511(a)(8)) | Mother: had moderate/substantial compliance by 2015–Jan 2016; bonds with children and professionals’ testimony support reunification | Agency/Court: despite some efforts, mother’s relapses (positive test May 2016), inconsistent progress over 22 months, and inability to remedy addiction/mental-health issues justified termination for children’s permanence | Court: affirmed § 2511(a)(8) — removal >12 months, conditions persisted, and termination best served children’s needs/welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511(a) then § 2511(b))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining § 2511(a)(8) elements and that current willingness/ability to remedy conditions is not required)
- In re C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may weigh child’s need for permanence and bond with foster parents in best-interest analysis)