In Re: K.H.B., Appeal of: Office of C.Y.F.
107 A.3d 175
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- CYF sought involuntary termination of Mother and Father's parental rights to Child under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5), (8), and (b); trial court denied the petitions.
- Child, born March 2012, was in CYF custody since birth; Emergency Custody Authorization led to placement with Maternal Grandmother, then Paternal Aunt; Child adjudicated dependent in April 2012 due to parental aggravated circumstances.
- Family Service Plan goals included information releases, regular visits, cooperation with CYF, domestic abuse counseling, stabilization of mental health, and housing; Father had added goals for drug treatment, drug screens, and employment.
- CYF presented testimony from Father, Paternal Aunt, a clinical supervisor, Mother, a CYF caseworker, and a psychologist; Dr. Rosenblum recommended against termination due to long-term risk and bond considerations; the trial court emphasized the parents’ bond and a need for a post-adoption contact agreement.
- Dr. Rosenblum found Child’s strongest attachment to Paternal Aunt and recommended potential adoption, but acknowledged risks if parental rights were terminated and visits ceased; Aunt testified it was in Child’s best interest to remain with her, though she would allow limited contact.
- This Court reversed the trial court’s denial of termination under 2511(a)(5) and remanded for expedited proceedings, holding that termination best serves Child’s needs and welfare despite bond considerations; the court also held that the trial court erred in conditioning termination on Aunt’s willingness to enter an Act 101 post-adoption contact agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 2511(b) is warranted where 2511(a)(5) grounds are proven | CYF argued that termination best serves Child's needs and welfare. | Mother and Father argued termination was not in Child's best interests given bonds and potential future risk; court should avoid severing parental bond if not in Child's best interests. | Reversed; termination meets needs and welfare. |
| Whether Act 101 post-adoption contact agreement is a required condition for termination | CYF contends termination should not be delayed by Aunt's willingness to sign an Act 101 agreement. | Paternal Aunt's unwillingness to sign post-adoption contact agreement blocks termination. | Reversed; Act 101 agreement not required to condition termination; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in termination cases; defer to trial court on credibility)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing standard for termination burden)
- In re S.P., 616 Pa. 309, 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (bond and best interests considerations in 2511(a)(5)/(b) analysis)
- In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (concurrent planning and weighing rapid permanency versus ongoing parental bonds)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs and welfare; preservation of bond considerations)