In Re: R.J.C.K.,et al., minors, Appeal of: R.K.
In Re: R.J.C.K.,et al., minors, Appeal of: R.K. No. 132 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- Two children (born 2010 and 2011) were removed from parental care in 2013 after reports of domestic violence, injuries to other siblings, and unsafe home conditions; placed with maternal great-aunt/uncle in foster care in May 2013.
- CYF filed an initial termination petition in Feb 2015; trial court terminated Mother’s rights but denied termination of Father’s rights in May 2015; Superior Court affirmed the denial as to Father in Dec 2015.
- CYF filed a second petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in June 2016; after a December 16, 2016 hearing the trial court terminated Father’s rights to both children under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).
- Key evidence: Dr. Rosenblum’s interactional evaluation (children, foster parents, Father), CYF caseworker testimony, visitation supervisor testimony, and permanency review reports showing Father’s failure to achieve stable housing, mental health treatment, employment, and documentation of services.
- Psychological/behavioral findings: children strongly attached to foster parents and had only casual attachment to Father; R-J.C.K. exhibited trauma symptoms (nightmares, bedwetting); L.K. resisted visits and expressed mixed feelings about Father.
Issues
| Issue | CYF's Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) exist | Father’s repeated/continued incapacity and refusal left children without essential parental care and conditions cannot be remedied | Father substantially remedied conditions: obtained housing/employment, addressed substance/domestic violence/parenting, maintained visits | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2); Father failed to document remedies, did not comply with service plan, and children lacked essential parental care from him |
| Whether conditions causing removal could be remedied in a reasonable time | CYF: Father failed to make timely, sustained progress on goals (housing, MH treatment, DV counseling) | Father: claimed completion of goals and consistent visitation showing progress | Court found conditions were not remedied in reasonable time; Father’s actions since prior denial hampered reunification |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests under § 2511(b) | CYF: children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs served by permanency with foster parents; bonds with foster parents stronger; visits caused trauma | Father: interest in parenting, bond exists, visits appropriate and enjoyed by children | Court held termination served children’s needs and welfare; foster attachments strong, parental bond with Father weak and visits deleterious |
| Standard of appellate review and sufficiency of evidence | CYF: trial court findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; defer to trial court credibility | Father: record does not support clear and convincing proof of unremedied incapacity or best interests finding | Superior Court affirmed: competent evidence supported trial court, standard of clear and convincing evidence met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for termination orders and definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: conduct first, then child’s best interests)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs-and-welfare analysis emphasizes love, comfort, security, and stability)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no-bond evidence may permit inference that bond does not exist)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court need only affirm under any one subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b))