In Re: K.J.K. Appeal of: T.W.
1260 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Stepfather T.W. appealed the Orphans' Court's July 12, 2017 order denying his petition to terminate Father M.K.'s parental rights so T.W. could adopt the minor child K.J.K.
- The trial court issued findings and a discussion supporting its order but did not cite or analyze the controlling statutory standard in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) or (b).
- The appellate panel applied the abuse-of-discretion standard for parental-termination appeals and stressed deference to trial-court factfinding when supported by the record.
- The Superior Court determined the trial court failed to analyze whether Appellant proved grounds for termination under § 2511(a)(1) by clear and convincing evidence and failed to explain any § 2511(b) bond analysis.
- Because the trial-court opinion lacked legal analysis tying testimony and credibility findings to § 2511(a)(1) and (b), the Superior Court remanded for a supplemental opinion addressing those statutory subsections and the Father–child bond.
- The Superior Court set deadlines for the supplemental opinion and for supplemental briefing, retained jurisdiction, and relinquished panel assignment pending the new opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order denying termination should be reviewed on the merits | T.W. (Appellant) contends the trial court erred by denying termination and that the record supports termination under § 2511(a)(1) | M.K. (Father) contends termination was properly denied, implicitly relying on the trial court's findings and any existing bond with the child | Superior Court did not reach merits; remanded because the trial court's opinion lacked necessary statutory analysis under § 2511(a)(1) and (b) |
| Whether the trial court's opinion adequately applied § 2511(a)(1) (parental abandonment/incapacity) | Appellant argues the trial court should have explained how evidence met or failed to meet the clear-and-convincing § 2511(a)(1) standard | Father argues the trial court's factual findings justify denial; no specific statutory analysis required | Court found the trial court failed to analyze evidence under § 2511(a)(1); remand for explicit analysis |
| Whether the trial court adequately analyzed § 2511(b) (child's best interests and bond) | Appellant asserts the court must explain whether any parent–child bond precludes termination under § 2511(b) | Father asserts bond and child's best interests warranted denial | Court ordered supplemental opinion to address bond and § 2511(b) analysis explicitly |
| Whether appellate review can proceed without statutory analysis from the trial court | Appellant seeks appellate resolution now | Father relies on existing record and findings | Court concluded meaningful appellate review is not possible without the trial court’s statutory analysis; remanded for supplemental opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (explains deference to trial-court factfinding in termination cases)
- R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion on standards of review in parental-termination matters)
- Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (discusses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion principles)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (applies abuse-of-discretion review in termination/adoption context)
- In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (addresses appellate restraint in fact-specific family cases)