In Re: L.R.P., Appeal of: A.P., mother
980 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Children (born 2010–2015) were removed on October 31, 2014 after CYS found an older child with a suspicious orbital fracture, the home in poor condition, and multiple unmet medical and developmental needs among the children.
- Three children had significant developmental delays and unmet medical needs (vision surgery, orthotics, therapy); a fourth child (E.P.P.) never lived with parents and developed normally in foster care.
- Parents had received in‑home early intervention services since 2011 and 300 days of a structured parenting program, plus supervised visitation and mental‑health services, with only limited and uneven progress.
- Foster parents provided consistent care, medical treatment, and therapy; three children showed stronger attachment to foster parents than to biological parents.
- CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate both parents’ rights; after a hearing the trial court terminated Mother’s (and Father’s) parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(2) grounds met (parental incapacity cannot be remedied) | Mother: she participated in services, made improvements, and can continue remedying deficits; expert/providers offered favorable observations | Court/CYS: longstanding, repeated neglect and incapacity persisted despite extensive services; progress was limited and not likely to be remedied in a reasonable time | Held: Affirmed – §2511(a)(2) satisfied; incapacity persisted and unlikely to be remedied timely |
| Whether termination meets children’s best interests under §2511(b) | Mother: termination would sever her bond; her limitations are environmental and she is improving | Court/CYS: children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs are best met by foster parents who provided stability and remedial care; bonds to parents are weak/attenuated | Held: Affirmed – §2511(b) favors termination; children’s needs require permanent placement with foster parents |
| Credibility of experts and weight of evidence | Mother: early‑intervention providers (Hertel, Reed) observed better parenting and contradicted psychologist | Court/CYS: trial court found those providers less credible and more client‑advocate than psychologist and caseworker; relied on objective testing and observations | Held: Trial court’s credibility determinations upheld on appeal |
| Whether termination under other subsections (§2511(a)(5), (8)) required separate analysis | Mother: raised challenges to other subsections | Court/CYS: court found (a)(2) and (b) sufficient; appellate court may affirm on any one ground | Held: Appellate court affirmed based on §2511(a)(2) and (b); (a)(5) and (8) not necessary to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for appellate review and termination analysis)
- In re Quick, 559 A.2d 42 (Pa. Super. 1989) (termination appropriate where parent failed to remedy conditions leading to removal)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (focus on child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under §2511(b))
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding analysis and limits of affection alone to prevent termination)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluations not always required; safety and permanency considerations may control)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court may affirm termination on any single valid ground)