In Re: K.C.W., Appeal of: A.B.S.
1301 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 23, 2022Background:
- Child born Feb. 2020; Mother tested positive for marijuana at birth and CYS took custody two days later.
- Both parents had prior involuntary terminations of parental rights (aggravating circumstances); CYS nonetheless pursued reunification and provided services.
- Permanency plan required mental‑health treatment, anger management, parenting classes, drug screens, and cooperation with caseworkers; pandemic caused some early virtual visits.
- Mother was discharged from anger management for noncompliance/verbality, had at least one positive drug screen and refused another, posted hostile allegations on social media, and revoked/releases hindering verification of progress.
- Child remained in foster care from birth, bonded with foster family (an adoptive resource) and was developmentally on target; CYS filed a petition to terminate parental rights in March 2021.
- Orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) and (b); Mother appealed arguing inadequate reunification assistance (especially given COVID‑19) and other errors; appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to terminate under §2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/not remedied) | Mother: evidence insufficient; CYS failed to provide meaningful reunification assistance (COVID impeded services). | CYS: provided services (even more than typical), Mother remained uncooperative, failed to remediate mental‑health, substance‑use, parenting, and domestic‑violence issues. | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence under §2511(a)(2); causes of removal persisted and were unlikely to be remedied. |
| Best interests under §2511(b) (bond/needs & welfare) | Mother: (not argued in detail) implied that severance would harm child. | CYS: Child has no meaningful bond with Mother, is bonded to foster family that provides stability; termination serves child’s developmental, emotional, physical needs. | Affirmed: record supports finding termination is in child’s best interests. |
| Reliance on psychologist report / evidentiary error | Mother: court improperly relied on psychologist Kashurba’s report not admitted into evidence. | Orphans’ court/CYS: court vacated findings tied to report; remainder of record independently supports termination — any error was harmless. | Affirmed: any reliance was either erroneous but vacated or harmless; decision stands. |
| Adequacy of reunification efforts (including pandemic limitations) | Mother: pandemic and program choices (religious orientation) limited reunification; CYS did not accommodate her needs. | CYS: offered extensive services, extra visits, alternatives; Mother declined, revoked releases, and thwarted verification of compliance. | Affirmed: services were adequate and Mother’s noncooperation—not COVID—prevented reunification. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate deference to trial court in termination proceedings)
- In re Interest of D.F., 165 A.3d 960 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court credibility findings entitled to great deference)
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (scope of appellate review and evidentiary sufficiency in TPR cases)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may accept or reject evidence and determine credibility)
- In re J.R.E., 218 A.3d 920 (Pa. Super. 2019) (parents must make diligent efforts toward resuming parental duties; late promises may be untimely)
- In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2021) (parental incapacity may include refusal and inability to perform duties)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required under §2511(a)(2))
- In re K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super. 2020) (court need only agree with one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b) to affirm termination)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanency limits indefinite delays for reunification)