In Re: N.H., a minor, Appeal of: A.H.
90 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- Child (born Dec. 2013) tested positive for cocaine and methadone at birth; parents had longstanding substance abuse, unstable housing, and domestic violence history.
- OCYF intervened repeatedly since 2009; a dependency adjudication was entered April 1, 2014 based on parental substance use, criminal charges, and unsafe home conditions.
- Child was removed from parental care after missed medical appointments and safety concerns; has lived with foster parents for ~30 months and is thriving there.
- Father had multiple alleged domestic-violence incidents (including PFA petitions and police reports); he denies responsibility and asserts allegations were fabricated by Mother.
- OCYF filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (petition filed March 2, 2016); after hearings, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights on Dec. 19, 2016.
- Father appealed, arguing the court erred under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) by undervaluing the parent–child bond; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | OCYF / Orphans’ Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b) served Child’s needs and welfare | Termination would sever a strong bond; Child would lose Father’s love and affection | Child’s best interests favor permanency with foster parents; Father’s history (esp. domestic violence) prevents safe, stable parenting | Affirmed: termination best served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parental conduct then child’s best interests)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bond is one factor among many; courts may emphasize child safety, stability, and continuity)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (importance of considering love, comfort, security, and stability in best-interest analysis)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a child’s need for permanence and stability cannot be indefinitely delayed for parental progress)