In Re: N.H., a minor, Appeal of: S.A.
73 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Child (born Dec. 2013) tested positive for cocaine and methadone at birth; Mother admitted ongoing heroin/crack use during pregnancy and multiple relapses thereafter.
- OCYF engaged repeatedly since 2009 for allegations of drug use, inadequate supervision, deplorable housing, and domestic violence between Mother and Father.
- Child lived with foster parents for over 30 months and was described by experts as thriving and securely attached to them.
- Psychologist (Dr. O’Hara) evaluated Mother and Child interactionally and opined Mother lacked stability, had parenting deficits, continued substance abuse, and poor attunement with Child; removal from foster home would be detrimental to Child.
- OCYF filed petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and § 2511(b); Mother conceded the (a) grounds but appealed the § 2511(b) best-interests determination.
- Orphans’ Court terminated parental rights (Dec. 19, 2016); Superior Court affirmed, holding termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and that appointment of a GAL (who supported termination) did not conflict with the child’s legal interests.
Issues
| Issue | Mother (Appellant) Argument | OCYF / Orphans’ Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) served the child’s needs and welfare | Court focused improperly on Mother’s faults; court failed to consider harm to Child from severing bond | Child’s need for permanence, stability, and current attachment to foster parents outweighs limited bond with Mother | Affirmed: termination under § 2511(b) was proper — benefits of permanency outweighed detriment of severing bond |
| Whether the court erred by relying on bond analysis rather than child-centered best-interest factors | Court improperly balanced and fault‑based; should emphasize effect on Child | Best-interest inquiry permissibly considers bond plus safety, stability, continuity, and foster placement benefits | Affirmed: court properly considered bond among other factors (safety, stability, foster attachment) |
| Adequacy of child representation under In re Adoption of L.B.M. (appointment of counsel) | GAL (though an attorney) cannot substitute for separate counsel required by L.B.M.; record unclear | No conflict between Child’s legal and best interests; GAL supported termination and represented child’s legal interest here | Affirmed: no remand; GAL’s dual role did not create a conflict in this case |
| Concession as to statutory (a) grounds | Mother conceded OCYF proved clear-and-convincing evidence under § 2511(a) | OCYF established statutory grounds for termination | Not contested on appeal; (a) grounds accepted, review limited to § 2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and importance of bond inquiry)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court may weigh bond, safety, stability, and continuity in best-interest analysis)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanency cannot be subordinated indefinitely to a parent’s progress)