In Re: S.N.H.
In Re: S.N.H. No. 2421 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Father (J.M.H.) and Mother had five children; CYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights (Dec 26, 2014 and Mar 27, 2015). Children had been in out-of-home placement with maternal grandmother for extended periods.
- Longstanding Agency involvement dating to 2007 with repeated removals for substance abuse, domestic violence, instability, and parental incapacity. Dependency court goals changed to adoption in 2014–2015.
- Father admitted addiction to non-prescribed ephedrine pills, chronic back pain, lack of independent income, and dependence on Mother for housing and insurance; he continued to live with Mother post-divorce.
- Agency evidence showed Father repeatedly failed to remediate conditions, enabled Mother’s substance use, and lacked housing/income to reunify; parents presented a volatile, unstable relationship.
- Trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); Father appealed. Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Agency proved grounds under §2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity, neglect) | CYF: Father’s repeated incapacity, substance abuse, and dependency on Mother caused lack of essential parental care and won’t be remedied | Father: He loves the children; disputed sufficiency of clear and convincing proof that incapacity is unremediable | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of repeated and continued incapacity; father cannot remedy within reasonable time (trial court credited testimony) |
| Whether Agency proved §2511(a)(5) (6+ months out of care; conditions continue; not likely remedied) | CYF: Children were in care >6 months; underlying conditions persist; services unlikely to remedy in reasonable time | Father: Challenged that conditions could be remedied and that termination best serves children | Held: Affirmed — statutory elements satisfied; record and exhibits showed long-term out-of-home placement and ongoing conditions |
| Whether Agency proved §2511(a)(8) (12+ months out of care and conditions persist) | CYF: Each child had been out of parental care 12+ months and conditions continued | Father: Contested sufficiency and weight of evidence | Held: Affirmed — §2511(a)(8) met for the children |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare; bonding analysis) | CYF: Termination serves children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs; children bonded to foster/maternal grandmother who is adoptive resource | Father: Argued parent-child bond and best interests weigh against termination | Held: Affirmed — trial court found minimal beneficial parent-child bond, strong, stable bond with grandmother, and that permanence/stability favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and scope on termination appeals)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard defined)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court need only agree with any one subsection of §2511(a) to affirm)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bifurcated §2511(a) then (b) analysis; focus on parental conduct first)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bonding analysis and role of social workers/caseworkers)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (seriousness of involuntary termination and need for clear necessity)
- In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2004) (measure parental performance in light of similar circumstances)