In Re: P.Z., Appeal of: M.L.
113 A.3d 840
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Child P.Z. born Feb 2012; newborn withdrawal from methadone; placed in CYF custody and in a pre-adoptive foster home from 3 months old.
- Father (M.L.) lived in Arizona, delayed acknowledging paternity until September 2012 (DNA), and otherwise had sporadic engagement with CYF and the child.
- CYF created a Family Service Plan (FSP) and provided multiple services including ICPC referral, travel for visits, and Skype contact; Father repeatedly failed to complete required documentation, fingerprinting, and consistent parenting tasks.
- Juvenile court ordered CYF to file a termination petition after P.Z. had been in placement 16 months; CYF delayed filing, later sought to withdraw the petition, and then prosecuted termination in 2014.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed, focusing on § 2511(a)(8) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYF/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying CYF’s motion to withdraw the termination petition | Denial improper because CYF had decided to provide more reunification services and Father wasn’t given necessary services (statutory exception under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9)(iii)) | Court must enforce ASFA timing; no exception applied because record showed reasonable efforts and no documented compelling reason to delay filing | Denied — court properly refused withdrawal; CYF had provided reasonable services and no exception applied |
| Whether court erred in denying Father’s motion to dismiss at close of CYF’s case-in-chief | CYF failed to prove statutory grounds; court improperly considered guardian ad litem evidence before ruling | Court independently evaluated CYF’s evidence and found clear-and-convincing proof before other witnesses testified | Denied — court did not shift burden; sufficient evidence supported denial of dismissal |
| Whether CYF proved statutory grounds for involuntary termination under § 2511(a) | Father contended insufficient proof that conditions continued and that termination served child’s welfare | CYF relied on evaluations (Dr. Rosenblum), Father’s long absence, failure to remedy conditions, and child’s established bond with foster mother | Held — sufficient clear-and-convincing evidence under § 2511(a)(8) (and (b)); termination affirmed |
| Whether termination met best interests under § 2511(b) | Father argued the child’s needs/welfare did not require termination | CYF/experts testified child lacked attachment to Father and was securely attached to preadoptive foster mother; adoption best for permanency | Held — termination best served P.Z.’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (ASFA-driven permanency objectives and 15-of-22-month inquiry)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (statute does not mandate reunification over timely permanency; prevents foster care drift)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (statutory obligation to inquire about termination petitions when child in placement 15 of 22 months)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (two-part test: conduct under § 2511(a); child’s needs under § 2511(b))
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa.Super. 2010) (deferential appellate review of termination determinations)
- In re Adoption of L.J.B., 18 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2011) (burden of proof for termination is clear and convincing evidence)
- In Re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(8))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa.Super. 2006) (application of § 2511 standards)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa.Super. 2004) (appellate affirmation requires agreeing with at least one statutory ground)
- Quinn v. Bupp, 955 A.2d 1014 (Pa.Super. 2008) (notice of appeal from final order preserves review of interlocutory orders)