In Re: M.M., Appeal of: R.H.
106 A.3d 114
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Mother (R.H.) had repeated CYF involvement from 2003–2013 for substance abuse, neglect, physical abuse, and deplorable housing; children: T.M. (2002), M.M. (2003), I.M. (2005).
- Multiple dependency adjudications and service plans; children removed on several occasions and placed with maternal relatives; criminal convictions for Mother related to endangering welfare and assault; Mother sentenced to prison in March 2013.
- CYF obtained Emergency Custody in June 2012; children have lived with maternal aunt since August 30, 2012. TPR petition filed November 2013.
- Orphans’ Court held hearings (Apr–May 2014), heard testimony from CYF caseworker and psychologist Dr. Bernstein, and found Mother’s bond with children present but not healthy or secure.
- Court concluded termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b) was warranted because maternal aunt provides stable, non-physical parenting and the children’s safety and developmental needs would be best served by adoption.
- Superior Court affirmed on appeal, focusing on Section 2511(b) best-interest analysis and deferring to trial court credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CYF/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of parental rights is in children’s best interests under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Mother: Court gave insufficient weight to the parent–child bond; incarceration and past history should not be dispositive; children want to maintain relationship | CYF: Children’s safety, stability, and prospects for adoption with maternal aunt outweigh any bond; bond is not healthy or securely attached | Held: Affirmed. Termination under §2511(b) was appropriate because children’s developmental/ safety needs and adoptive prospects outweigh detriment from severing bond |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing burden in TPR cases)
- In the Interest of B.C., 36 A.3d 601 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bifurcated §2511(a) then (b) analysis required)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangible factors—love, comfort, security—are relevant to §2511(b))
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may emphasize child’s safety and stability alongside bond analysis)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (importance of continuity and whether severing bond will be detrimental)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (a strong but unhealthy parent–child bond does not preclude termination)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (a parent’s love alone does not preclude TPR)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court credibility findings in TPR decisions)