In Re: L.A.C.H., Appeal of: C.H. & A.H.
In Re: L.A.C.H., Appeal of: C.H. & A.H. No. 1911 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Father (C.H.) and Stepmother (A.H.) petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother (K.D.H.)’s parental rights to Child (born Aug. 2008) and sought to have Stepmother adopt the Child; petition filed Sept. 28, 2016.
- Father had primary physical custody pursuant to a March 6, 2015 stipulation that allowed Mother supervised visitation through Misty Isle Bridges.
- Orphans’ Court held an evidentiary hearing on Nov. 16, 2016; witnesses included Child’s therapist, teacher, school headmaster, Mother, and Mother’s acquaintances/contacts from Misty Isle Bridges.
- Petition invoked 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (six‑month failure/settled purpose) but did not raise § 2511(a)(2) below; appellants later argued § 2511(a)(2) on appeal.
- Orphans’ Court denied termination and adoption petitions; found credibility determinations supported by record and that Father/Stepmother impeded Mother’s visitation and bond with Child.
- Superior Court affirmed: held appellants waived § 2511(a)(2), found evidence insufficient under § 2511(a)(1), and declined to find the Child’s welfare supported termination under § 2511(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(1) grounds (six‑month failure/settled purpose) supported termination | Mother showed settled purpose to relinquish and failed to perform parental duties in six months before petition | Orphans’ Court: testimony/documents do not clearly show failure or settled purpose; visitation interference explains gaps | Court: Evidence insufficient to terminate under § 2511(a)(1) (affirmed) |
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) supported termination (repeated incapacity/neglect causing lack of essential parental care) | § 2511(a)(2) conditions existed and could not be remedied | Mother: § 2511(a)(2) was not pleaded or litigated below | Court: Claim waived for failure to raise in orphans’ court; not considered on appeal |
| Whether Mother’s indicated child‑abuse finding should factor into § 2511(b) welfare analysis | Appellants: Child‑Line “indicated” finding shows harm and supports termination under § 2511(b) | Mother: bond and context, plus visitation interference, mitigate weight of indicated finding | Court: Did not find abuse finding dispositive; weighing of Child’s needs/welfare did not support termination; appellants failed to meet burden |
| Whether court abused discretion or made legal error in overall application of termination standards | Appellants: court erred in law and abused discretion in failing to find termination grounds and to consider abuse finding | Mother: court’s factual findings and credibility determinations are supported; legal conclusions were correct | Court: No abuse of discretion or legal error; factual findings supported and decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of appellate review and deference to trial court credibility in termination cases)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (petitioner bears burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1988) (three‑part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): explanation, post‑abandonment contact, and § 2511(b) effect)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider totality of circumstances and not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate affirmance may rest on any subsection of § 2511 where supported)