In Re: T.R.C., A Minor, Appeal of: I.T.
947 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Child T.R.C. born Oct. 21, 2014; mother (K.D.V.) displayed dangerous neglect in March 2015 (infant ejected from stroller twice) and CYF obtained emergency custody the next day.
- Father (I.T.) has been incarcerated since June/August 2014 with a minimum release no earlier than 2024 (maximum 2034); he was largely absent during dependency proceedings and initially resisted genetic testing and acknowledgment of paternity.
- CYF placed T.R.C. in foster/kinship care in 2015; she has remained in agency custody and later moved to a pre-adoptive home; a court-appointed psychologist recommended adoption as necessary for the child’s stability.
- CYF filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the orphans’ court found CYF failed to provide reasonable reunification services but nonetheless terminated parental rights under § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
- The orphans’ court emphasized Father’s prolonged incarceration as a repeated and continued incapacity that cannot be remedied within a reasonable time, making him unable to provide essential parental care; Father appealed, arguing CYF’s failure to include him in proceedings and provide services tainted the termination.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding that incarceration can be a determinative factor under § 2511(a)(2) and that lack of agency services does not negate statutory grounds for termination where incapacity (incarceration) is dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF proved grounds to terminate Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/incapacity) | CYF: Father’s prolonged incarceration caused child to lack essential parental care and the incapacity cannot be remedied within a reasonable time | Father: CYF failed to provide reasonable efforts and excluded him from dependency proceedings, so termination is tainted and premature | Held: Affirmed — § 2511(a)(2) satisfied because incarceration is a determinative incapacity and will continue at least until 2024 |
| Whether CYF’s failure to provide reasonable reunification services defeats termination under § 2511(a)(2) | Father: Agency’s failure prejudiced his rights; should bar termination | CYF: Reasonable-efforts failure does not become an element of § 2511(a)(2) | Held: Agency’s failure does not negate § 2511(a)(2); Supreme Court precedent forbids adding reasonable-efforts as an element |
| Whether the orphans’ court abused discretion by terminating despite procedural shortcomings | Father: Court should have declined termination given procedural exclusion and lack of services | Orphans’ court/CYF: Procedural failings noted but not dispositive given incarceration-based incapacity | Held: No abuse of discretion; factual findings supported and termination appropriate |
| Whether needs-and-welfare inquiry under § 2511(b) was satisfied | CYF: Termination serves child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs (psychologist recommended adoption) | Father: Argues procedural unfairness undermines best-interest finding | Held: Court affirmed termination under § 2511(b); Father did not challenge this ruling on appeal and record supports it |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be a determinative factor under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency failure to provide services does not preclude termination under § 2511(a)(2) when statutory grounds otherwise established)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for termination appeals; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate affirmation of termination may rest on any single valid statutory ground)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to prove termination under § 2511(a)(2))