In Re: K.M., A Minor, Appeal of: M.M.
In Re: K.M., A Minor, Appeal of: M.M. No. 1414 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Mother (M.M.) had a long history with OCYF and multiple prior dependency removals of daughter K.M.; son D.M-R. born 2010 also removed in later proceedings.
- In January 2015 Mother left the children in Pittsburgh with a third party (N.G.) and moved to North Carolina; N.G. filed a private dependency petition and the children were placed in her care.
- Court-ordered goals included independent housing, drug & alcohol assessment and compliance, parenting classes, and domestic-violence treatment; Mother provided limited verification and completed some online courses without releases for OCYF to confirm.
- Mother had minimal contact with the children after January 2015: no sustained visits, few phone calls, no cards/gifts, and one supervised visit in March 2016 during which she ignored one child and focused on the other.
- Family court found aggravated circumstances relieving OCYF of reunification efforts and terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (a)(5); Mother conceded (a) grounds on appeal and challenged the Section 2511(b) best-interests analysis.
- Trial court determined children had a strong bond with N.G., were thriving with her, and that no meaningful emotional bond existed between Mother and the children such that termination would harm them.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | OCYF/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination meets 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (best interests of the child) | Court improperly focused on bond with N.G. and erred in finding no parent-child bond; termination would harm the children | Mother’s minimal contact, failure to remediate conditions, and children’s strong attachment to N.G. show no detrimental effect from severing parental rights | Affirmed: termination under §2511(b) was proper; children’s needs and welfare favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus under §2511(b) is the child’s needs and welfare)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consideration of intangibles and parent-child bond under §2511(b))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when no evidence of bond exists, court may infer absence and weigh child’s attachment to foster caregiver)