In re the Adoption of R.K.Y.
72 A.3d 669
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- In June 2011 Erie County OCY removed four children from mother J.R.’s home after reports of bruising, domestic violence, exposure to pornography, school truancy, and allegations that one child took nude photos of J.R.; J.R. stipulated to dependency but denied many specific abuse allegations.
- OCY changed the permanency goal to adoption in July 2012 and filed petitions to terminate J.R.’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
- At the December 2012 evidentiary hearing the children did not testify; OCY introduced psycho‑sexual evaluations prepared by Parkside clinicians who relied on interviews of the children and J.R.; expert Smith testified that J.R.’s mental health, substance use, and refusal to acknowledge alleged abuse made her unable to parent safely.
- Trial court initially referenced additional § 2511 subsections in its decrees but amended them post‑appeal to remove inadvertent citations; that procedural challenge was deemed moot.
- The trial court found J.R. caused physical and sexual abuse and terminated parental rights; the Superior Court affirmed but not on the trial court’s abuse‑findings—rather on § 2511(a)(8) grounds.
- The Superior Court held the children’s out‑of‑court statements were admissible for limited purposes (expert bases and children’s state of mind) but were not substantive proof of abuse; because the record lacked independent substantive proof of the alleged abuse, the court rejected termination based solely on those abuse findings and instead affirmed under § 2511(a)(8) (conditions continuing for 12+ months and termination serving children’s welfare).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court cited additional §2511 subsections not pled by OCY | J.R.: trial court erred by terminating rights under unpled subsections | OCY: inadvertent citation; correctable | Moot — trial court corrected decrees under Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(1) and amended them post‑appeal |
| Use of children’s out‑of‑court statements as substantive evidence of abuse | J.R.: statements were hearsay; children didn’t testify; statements were erroneously treated as substantive proof of abuse | OCY: statements admissible (expert reliance; state of mind) and supported termination | Statements admissible only for limited purposes (expert basis; children’s state of mind), not as substantive proof; trial court erred to rely on them as independent proof of abuse |
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights | J.R.: absence of substantive proof of abuse undermines termination | OCY: other statutory grounds (e.g., §2511(a)(8)) satisfied—children removed 12+ months and conditions persist | Affirmed on alternative ground §2511(a)(8): children removed >12 months, conditions leading to removal continued, and termination serves children’s welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.M.T., 64 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and clear‑and‑convincing burden in parental‑termination appeals)
- In re D.Y., 34 A.3d 177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (expert may rely on out‑of‑court material of a type reasonably relied upon in the field)
- In re Child M., 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996) (child’s out‑of‑court statements admissible to show mental state and therapy needs)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (elements for §2511(a)(8) termination)
- In re R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§2511(a)(8) does not require evaluation of parent’s willingness/ability to remedy conditions)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (termination may be affirmed under any one §2511 subsection)
- Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 2000) (experts may base opinions on materials not in evidence if customarily relied upon)
- Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 608 A.2d 515 (Pa. Super. 1992) (hearsay relied on by experts may be disclosed and is admissible for that purpose)
- Boucher v. Pa. Hosp., 831 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reliability of out‑of‑court materials when presented through qualified expert)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (policy recognizing that children cannot wait indefinitely while parents address conditions leading to removal)