In Re: Relinquishment of A.F. Appeal of: J.F.
228 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- YFS filed petitions (Sept. 24, 2015) seeking involuntary termination of parental rights to four children (T.F., N.F., A.F., D.F.) of J.F. (Mother) and R.F. (Father); hearings were held Dec. 16, 2015.
- Children were removed July 23, 2013 after repeated incidents of inadequate supervision; they remained in foster/kinship care for ~30 months at time of the termination hearing.
- Father was largely absent: whereabouts unknown after 2013, located incarcerated Nov. 2014, had virtually no contact with children or the agency during the relevant period.
- Mother engaged sporadically in services (therapy, parenting classes); supervised visits never progressed beyond line-of-sight due to inappropriate comments, lack of engagement, and poor age-appropriate expectations.
- Trial court found statutory grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and best-interest requirement under § 2511(b) satisfied for both parents; Superior Court affirmed termination orders on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (YFS) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination under § 2511(a) exist for Mother | Mother's conduct (longstanding lack of supervision, failure to remediate, poor visitation progress) satisfies §§ 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) | Mother claimed insufficient proof that her conduct met statutory standards and that she improved | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination (court relied on (a)(2) as sufficient) |
| Whether termination of Mother's rights is in children's best interests under § 2511(b) | Termination serves children's developmental, physical, emotional needs given stable foster placements and weak maternal bond | Mother argued termination not in best interests due to attachment and prospects for reunification | Court affirmed: best-interest analysis favors termination (children settled in placements; mother lacked bonding and progress) |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination under § 2511(a) exist for Father | Father’s prolonged absence, lack of contact, incarceration, and failure to remedy conditions satisfy §§ 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) | Father argued insufficient evidence and abuse of discretion given incarceration and potential for future contact | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination; father had no meaningful relationship or contact for ~30 months |
| Whether termination of Father's rights is in children's best interests under § 2511(b) | Children are attached to foster parents; father made no contributions to their welfare | Father argued best interests require consideration of potential future relationship | Court affirmed: termination is in children's best interests due to stable placements and lack of parental contribution/contact |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination appeals)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility and findings binding if supported by competent evidence)
- Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (two-pronged analysis under § 2511: statutory grounds then best-interest inquiry)