In re N.A.M.
33 A.3d 95
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- DHS became involved in Oct 2003 due to Mother's instability and lack of support for her three children, including N.A.M. (b. 2002) and N.J.M. (b. 2003).
- Children were removed in Feb 2004; after services, the daughters were returned in spring 2006; a third daughter N.H. (b. 2006) and son N.B. (b. 2007) were later added to care.
- In Sept 2007, DHS received a substantiated report of physical and verbal abuse by Mother; she admitted corporal punishment and feared she might injure N.J.M.
- Judicially, the court ordered supervised visitation and urine screens; Mother tested positive for cannabinoids and PCP in Sept 2007.
- On Sept 27, 2007, the court adjudicated all four children dependent; DHS placed them in pre-adoptive foster homes and established a Family Service Plan addressing substance abuse, mental health, anger, parenting, housing, and visitation.
- Between 2007 and 2010, Mother showed only moderate compliance with the FSP; she completed some programs late, failed to document others, and faced ongoing substance abuse and mental health treatment gaps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved § 2511(a)(2) incapacity cannot be remedied | Mother argues she was capable of improvement and compliant with some goals. | DHS contends repeated incapacity and noncompliance show conditions cannot be remedied. | Yes; capacities cannot be remedied; termination proper. |
| Whether termination is in the best interests under § 2511(b) | Mother asserts ongoing bond and potential for improvement favors keeping rights. | DHS emphasizes stability and pre-adoptive placements; bond does not negate welfare needs. | Yes; best interests favor termination given foster stability and bond considerations. |
| Whether a formal bonding evaluation was required | Mother claims a bonding analysis should have been performed. | Court relied on caseworkers’ testimony and their assessment of needs and welfare. | Not required; bonding analysis not necessary to support termination here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two-step termination framework: § 2511(a) then § 2511(b))
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (three-part test for involuntary termination)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (incapacity may include refusal to perform parental duties)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles matter; bond status and child's needs are central)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond analysis is case-specific; not always determinative)
- In re T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (balance emotional bond against parents' inability to meet needs)
- In re T.R., 465 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1983) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
- Adoption of L.J.B., 18 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2011) (supervising court's role in reviewing termination decisions)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (credibility and best-interests focus in § 2511(b) analysis)