In Re: V.R.B. Appeal of: T.B.
In Re: V.R.B. Appeal of: T.B. No. 1856 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Child V.R.B., born Aug. 2012, was placed in foster care in Oct. 2015 after dependency proceedings concerning injuries to a half‑sibling; child adjudicated dependent Feb. 1, 2016.
- Father (T.B.) has been incarcerated since Sept. 2013 for sexual offenses against a niece; minimum release date in 2020 and will be on Megan’s List.
- Trial court found aggravated circumstances as to Father, denied him a reunification plan, and terminated visitation.
- Father never lived with the child; contact since incarceration consisted mainly of 16 letters sent beginning Apr. 2016; child was too young to read and has no meaningful relationship with Father.
- Agency petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b); trial court granted termination on Oct. 17, 2016; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s incarceration and conduct satisfy 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (incapacity causing child to be without essential parental care that cannot be remedied) | Father’s long incarceration, limited and belated contact, denial of a plan, and criminal history render him incapable of providing essential parental care and the condition is not remediable | Father argued incarceration alone does not mandate termination; he made some efforts to contact, can rehabilitate in prison programs, and may be able to parent after release | Court held § 2511(a)(2) satisfied: incarceration, minimal late contact, inability to remedy conditions, and the improbability of appropriate parenting supported termination |
| Whether termination serves the child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (needs and welfare, bond analysis) | Child’s needs favor permanence with maternal grandparents; child has no bond with Father; stability and safety required | Father did not meaningfully challenge § 2511(b) on appeal | Court held termination serves child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; no bond with Father; remaining with grandparents best serves child |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2); length of confinement is relevant)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to establish § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental incapacity may include refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (where no evidence of a bond exists, court may infer none for § 2511(b) analysis)