In re T.S.M.
620 Pa. 602
| Pa. | 2013Background
- CYF had nearly a decade of involvement with Mother’s family and numerous foster placements, creating foster care drift.
- Five siblings (Tai.M, Ti.M, Ty.M, N.M, Tae.M) were the focus, each with lengthy out-of-home placements and significant behavioral/psychological issues.
- The trial court initially resisted goal changes and termination; the Superior Court later changed some permanency goals to adoption, and the matter returned to post-goal-change procedures.
- During termination proceedings (2010–2012), the court relied on the existence of a strong mother–child bond and considered concurrent planning and open adoptions.
- The Court ultimately held that severing the parental bonds best serves the children’s needs and welfare, reversing the lower courts and ordering termination as to the five children.
- The decision emphasizes expediting permanency for foster children and rejects delaying termination to preserve unhealthy bonds; it endorses permanent homes over continued foster care drift.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pathological bond bars termination under 2511(b). | GAL argues bonds can be pathological and should not prevent termination. | Mother contends bonds are protective factors and may cause irreparable harm if severed. | Pathological bonds may be weighed, but here termination was proper to serve welfare. |
| Whether lack of current adoptive resources forecloses termination. | CYF argues resources are not necessary for termination. | Mother asserts absence of adoptive resources supports keeping parental rights. | Agency need not show an imminent adoption; termination may proceed to achieve permanency. |
| Whether concurrent planning was appropriate after a goal change to adoption. | Child welfare pursued concurrent planning to preserve reunification options. | Concurrent planning should not delay permanence when viability of reunification is unlikely. | Concurrent planning should not unduly prolong instability; in this case it was inappropriate given prolonged services without progress. |
| Whether ASFA time limits favor delay or support expedited termination. | ASFA requires timely permanency; delay harms children. | Court should balance bonds with need for permanent placement. | Court rejected a broad exception delaying permanency; termination favored to avoid ongoing drift. |
| Whether the existence of a bond justifies denying termination. | Bond supports preserving family ties. | Bond is not dispositive when it is unhealthy or pathological. | Bond alone cannot block termination when needs and welfare demand permanency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.M., 533 Pa. 115 (Pa. 1993) (bond considered as a factor in termination must be explored, not per se decisive)
- In re S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1019 (Pa. 2006) (concurrent planning and permanency goals alongside reunification efforts)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (concurrent planning and permanency objectives; focus on child’s welfare)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bond considerations; pre-adoptive placements influence termination analysis)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (clear-and-convincing standard; deference to trial court; needs/welfare)