In Re: N.N.W., a minor, Appeal of: S.W.
950 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Father (S.W.) had five children removed in Sept. 2013 after reports they were left unsupervised; children were placed with maternal grandmother and adjudicated dependent.
- Father had minimal contact: visited twice in the first 12 months and last saw the children in April 2014; CYF obtained an "aggravated circumstances" finding in Sept. 2014 relieving CYF of reunification efforts as to Father.
- CYF developed Family Service Plans requiring housing, substance/mental-health evaluation, cooperation with services, and visits; Father made no meaningful progress or contact.
- The maternal grandmother has cared for the children since 2013, plans to adopt, and the children identify her as their primary caregiver; psychological evaluation found attachments to grandmother and generally positive child functioning.
- CYF petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights in Feb. 2016 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); trial court terminated Father’s rights June 3, 2016; Father appealed solely challenging the § 2511(b) determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination meets the children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b) | CYF: termination serves children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs because children are bonded to grandmother and Father has no meaningful relationship | Father: record insufficient to show termination best serves children; no evidence children would not suffer if rights severed | Affirmed: Court found no parental bond; children attached to grandmother; termination under §2511(b) proper |
| Whether Father may challenge sufficiency under §2511(a) | N/A (CYF proved grounds) | Father did not raise §2511(a) sufficiency on appeal | Waived: Father failed to preserve challenge to §2511(a) termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review defers to trial court factfinding and credibility in dependency/termination cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs, including attachment and stability)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of parent–child bond exists due to prolonged separation, court may infer bond is absent and consider foster attachments)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and the requirement that appellate courts accept trial court factual findings when supported by the record)