In Re: N.L., J.L., B.L. and Y.L. Appeal of: Y.C.
1330 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Appellant Y.C. (Mother) is the parent of four children (N.L., J.L., B.L., Y.L.) removed from her care in March 2014 and placed in foster/relative placement.
- Lancaster County CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights in April–May 2015.
- Mother failed to complete many permanency-plan goals, provided inconsistent and unconvincing information about housing, and did not engage adequately with services; much of this inactivity persisted after the termination petitions were filed.
- The Orphans’ Court found expert and therapist testimony persuasive that the children had no beneficial bond with Mother, had healthy bonds with placement families, and that continued contact undermined therapeutic progress.
- The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal; the Superior Court conducted an independent review and affirmed the decrees and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(1) was proper | Mother evidenced failure/refusal to perform parental duties for the statutory period; conduct showed settled purpose or failure to fulfill duties | Mother asserted termination was improper and challenged sufficiency of evidence | Court affirmed: competent evidence of failure to perform duties supports termination |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) (incapacity not remedied) was proper | Repeated/incapacitating neglect/refusal left children without essential parental care and causes would not be remedied | Mother disputed that incapacity was repeated/irreparable | Court affirmed: evidence showed continued incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) was proper (6/12+ months removed) | Children had been removed >6 and >12 months; conditions causing removal persisted; termination served children’s needs and welfare | Mother argued conditions did not justify termination or could be remedied | Court affirmed: statutory time and persistent conditions satisfied grounds; termination in best interests |
| Whether termination under §2511(b) (children's needs/welfare and bonding) was proper | Termination necessary to provide permanency, stability, and protect therapeutic progress; no beneficial bond requiring preservation | Mother argued termination would harm parent-child relationship; challenged bonding evidence | Court affirmed: therapists and expert credible; preservation of Mother’s parental rights would harm children’s progress and stability |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders briefing requirements clarified for Pennsylvania appeals)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard/scope of appellate review in termination cases)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (termination may be affirmed if any subsection of §2511(a) is satisfied plus §2511(b) consideration)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (foundational statement of requirements for §2511(a)(2) termination)