In Re: L.C., a minor, Appeal of: M.C.
In Re: L.C., a minor, Appeal of: M.C. No. 1355 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Infant L.C. (b. Feb 2015) was voluntarily placed with maternal cousin in April 2015 after Mother’s arrest; dependency adjudication occurred December 2015. Child remained in placement ~16 months when petitions were heard in Aug 2016.
- County Children & Youth Services (CYS) created a service plan requiring drug/alcohol evaluation, neuro-psych testing, parenting classes, anger management, stable housing, and regular visits. Mother repeatedly delayed or failed to complete services and was often late or missed visits and court dates.
- Mother’s housing and relationships were unstable (multiple moves, periods of homelessness, volatile relationship with boyfriend involving PFAs and police calls). Mother obtained some services only shortly before hearings and did not fully complete parenting course or neuro-psych eval.
- The foster family had cared for L.C. for the vast majority of his life (over 90%), provided consistent medical care and stability, and L.C. had a strong bond with them (calls them “mama/dada”). CYS presented testimony that father would relinquish rights if Mother’s rights were terminated.
- Trial court changed permanency goal to adoption and involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) (12+ months in placement and conditions persist) | Mother argued evidence insufficient and disputed some factual findings; claimed some services were completed or in progress | Child was removed 16 months; conditions leading to removal (unstable housing, failure to complete services, volatile relationship) continued and were unlikely to be remedied in reasonable time | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(8) — CYS met burden by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination satisfied §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare; bond analysis) | Mother argued court improperly weighed bond and erred in assessing best interests | Court examined bonds, found Mother’s bond weaker than foster family’s; removing child from foster family would be more detrimental than severing biological bond | Court held termination met §2511(b); best interests favored adoption by foster family |
| Whether goal change to adoption was proper (best interests/goal change standards) | Mother argued goal change was unwarranted given partial service compliance and bond | CYS showed child in care majority of life, pre-adoptive placement, Mother’s lack of timely compliance and unstable circumstances | Court found change to adoption in child’s best interest and did not abuse discretion |
| Evidentiary objections (admission of CYS report and PFA petition) | Mother objected to hearsay and admission of PFA copy | Trial court admitted CYS report (author testified) and took judicial notice/accepted duplicate of PFA; any error deemed harmless given overwhelming record | Superior Court found objection waived in part and any evidentiary error harmless; court’s rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) and §2511(b))
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single §2511(a) ground and §2511(b))
- In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards for goal-change proceedings; child’s best interests control)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (guidance on bonding and best-interests analysis in termination context)
- In re KKR-S, 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no statutory requirement for formal bonding expert)
- In re CLG, 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental duty to provide a stable, safe environment and place child’s needs first)