In Re: M.Z.T.M.W., a minor, Appeal of: M.W.
163 A.3d 462
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Mother (M.W.) had a long CYF history dating to 1999; her parental rights to six prior children were already terminated.
- Twins M.Z.T.M.W. and M.Z.T.W., born April 2015, entered foster care at hospital discharge due to Mother's mental health, substance concerns, parental incapacity, and intellectual disabilities.
- The twins were placed in the same pre-adoptive foster home in June 2015, adjudicated dependent, and aggravated circumstances were found on June 23, 2015.
- CYF filed involuntary termination petitions on March 2, 2016; the orphans’ court held a hearing on November 17, 2016 and entered decrees terminating Mother’s rights that same day.
- Mother timely appealed but in her appellate brief conceded sufficiency under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) and raised only §2511(b) in argument; she also failed to preserve some issues in the required statements.
- The Superior Court concluded Mother waived challenges to §§2511(a)(2) and (5) and also found her §2511(b) challenge waived for failure to include it in the statement of questions/concise statement; the termination decrees were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF proved statutory grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a)(2) and (5) | CYF argued clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s repeated/incapacitating conduct leaving children without essential care and ongoing conditions justifying termination | Mother initially challenged §§2511(a)(2) and (5) in concise statement but conceded §2511(a)(2) was met and did not develop argument on §2511(a)(5) | Waived by Mother for failure to develop argument; court treated §2511(a)(2) as conceded and affirmed termination |
| Whether termination met best‑interests standard under §2511(b) | CYF argued termination served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs given foster placement and Mother’s inability to remedy conditions | Mother argued termination would harm bond/was not in children’s best interests (raised in parts) | Waived for appellate review because Mother did not include §2511(b) in statement of questions/concise statement; court did not reach merits and affirmed |
| Preservation/waiver principles for appellate review | CYF relied on procedural rules requiring issues to be raised and developed in briefs/statements | Mother contended merits should be reviewed despite procedural defects | Court applied mandatory waiver rules and declined to consider arguments not properly preserved |
| Whether court must sua sponte address §2511(b) where appellant does not challenge it | CYF implied court may affirm on alternative grounds | Mother did not press this issue | Court declined to adopt a rule requiring sua sponte analysis of §2511(b), distinguishing In re C.L.G. as non‑binding precedent for doing so |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and two‑part analysis for termination under §2511)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of emotional bond in §2511(b) analysis)
- In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues not developed in brief are waived)
- In re A.C., 991 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate waiver for undeveloped claims)
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues not in statement of questions are waived)
- City of Philadelphia v. Lerner, 151 A.3d 1020 (Pa. 2016) (waiver of issues omitted from concise statement is mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (limitations on excusing waiver)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (panel addressed §2511(b) sua sponte but did not establish a mandatory rule)