In Re: T.R.R., a Minor
918 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Child (born 2008) was placed in Bucks County CYS custody in December 2010 and adjudicated dependent in January 2011; permanency goal changed to adoption by agreement in September 2012.
- Child has special needs (speech/physical delays, dental decay, leg braces); foster parents intend to adopt and had long-term custody during proceedings.
- Both parents have documented mental-health issues; Father has additional history (suicide attempt, arson conviction, probation concerns about medication and home safety).
- Parents initially consented to termination of rights, later revoked consent; prior vacatur and appellate activity returned the matter to the Orphans’ Court for full evidentiary hearings (eleven days).
- CYS sought involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b); the Orphans’ Court concluded parents had not remedied incapacity and terminated rights, awarding custody to CYS.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYS proved grounds under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity, neglect or refusal that cannot be remedied) | Mother: CYS failed to prove repeated and continued incapacity or neglect under §2511(a)(2). | Father: Evidence insufficient to establish grounds under §2511(a)(2), (5), or (8). | Court: Affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2); parents’ incapacity persisted and would not be remedied in the reasonably near future. |
| Whether services reasonably available would have remedied the conditions leading to placement | Mother: Services or assistance available would have remedied the conditions; termination therefore improper. | Father: Court failed to account for CYS’ inadequate or inconsistent efforts accommodating his mental handicap. | Court: Acknowledged CYS’ deficiencies but found parents still lacked capacity; change to adoption goal ends dispute over adequacy of CYS’ reunification efforts. |
| Whether §2511(a)(8) (conditions causing placement continue to exist) was proven | Mother: No competent evidence that conditions persisted as to Mother. | Father: Same argument re: continuing conditions and that burden was improperly shifted to him. | Court: Termination supported; court need only find any one subsection proven and found continued, unremedied conditions. |
| Best interests under §2511(b) — whether termination serves child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs | Mother: Implied challenge that termination was not in child’s best interest given some parental efforts. | Father: Argued evidence of parental efforts and CYS failures should weigh against termination. | Court: Gave primary consideration to child’s welfare, noting long delay and need for permanency; termination affirmed despite parents’ partial compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court on credibility and findings)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court findings supported by competent evidence must be affirmed)
- Cardamone v. Elshoff, 659 A.2d 575 (Pa. Super. 1995) (child’s best interests are paramount and override parental rights)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (grounds for termination include incapacity and refusal; court must examine individual circumstances)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of §2511(a) must be proven to affirm termination)
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear-and-convincing burden for termination and its meaning)
- In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parents must use available resources and exercise firmness to preserve parent-child relationship)