In the Adoption of: D.S. Appeal of: J.P.
In the Adoption of: D.S. Appeal of: J.P. No. 1889 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Child D.S., born May 2014, was placed in kinship foster care with E.S. after referrals in Jan. 2015 alleging neglect and parental drug use; adjudicated dependent Feb. 2015 and has lived with E.S. continuously since Feb. 2015.
- Cumberland County CYS filed for involuntary termination of Mother J.P.’s parental rights and a permanency goal change to adoption; E.S. filed a report of intent to adopt.
- Mother has a history of substance abuse, multiple incarcerations during the case, inconsistent participation in required services (parenting, mental-health evaluation), and irregular visitation with the Child.
- Agency evidence showed the Child is strongly bonded to E.S.; observers described limited parent–child bonding between Mother and Child.
- Trial court changed the permanency goal to adoption and involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYS / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether goal change to adoption was proper | Mother argued original reasons for removal were substantially eliminated and she complied with many plan goals | CYS/ct. argued Mother remained unable to maintain sobriety, had inconsistent contact, and Child was bonded to foster family | Goal change to adoption affirmed — best interests favor stability with bonded kinship caregiver |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was supported | Mother argued she can provide essential care and had made progress on plan goals | CYS/ct. argued repeated incapacity/neglect (drug relapses, incarcerations, inconsistent services/visits) left Child without essential parental care and causes won’t be remedied | Termination under §2511(a)(2) upheld — clear and convincing evidence of continued incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (child’s best interests) | Mother argued termination is not in Child’s best interest given available family resources and her availability | CYS/ct. emphasized Child’s bond with E.S., stability, continuity, and potential harm of disrupting established caregiving | §2511(b) requirement satisfied — primary consideration to Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs favors termination |
| Whether alternative kin placement was adequately considered | Mother pointed to relatives (paternal grandmother/sister) as resources | CYS/ct. noted Mother/relatives failed to provide sufficient information or steps to permit viable placement; moving Child would be disruptive | Court found relatives not reasonably presented or investigated; placement with E.S. appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts defer to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and parental incapacity analysis)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (best-interests and goal-change burden on agency)
- In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (trial-court factual determinations entitled to deference)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court may affirm termination on any one subsection of §2511(a) with consideration of §2511(b))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bonding analysis under §2511(b))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (attenuated bond where child in foster care most of life)
- In re L.B.M., 156 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2017) (requirements for appointment of counsel for child in contested termination cases)