In the Int. of: A.C.J.P. Appeal of: Q.P.
In the Int. of: A.C.J.P. Appeal of: Q.P. No. 1475 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- Mother (Q.P.) has four children removed to Dauphin County Children and Youth: three oldest in care since Sept 2013 and youngest since Apr 2015; Agency filed petitions to terminate parental rights and change goal to adoption on Dec 21, 2015.
- Primary basis for involvement: Mother’s ongoing substance abuse (PCP), driving incidents with children in the car, homelessness, inconsistent compliance with drug screens and treatment, and criminal incarceration in 2015.
- Family Service Plan required cooperation with Agency, drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment, random urine screens, stable housing and employment, and participation in visits; Mother completed some in‑house treatment but repeatedly relapsed after discharge and failed to maintain consistent contact and housing.
- The children have been in stable pre‑adoptive foster placements (two separate foster homes plus one for the youngest) where they are bonded and receiving necessary therapeutic and medical services.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing Aug 16, 2016, terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b), and changed permanency goal to adoption; Superior Court affirmed on Mar 13, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights was proper under §2511(a) and (b) | Mother: conditions that led to removal have been remedied (sobriety since Nov 2015); Agency didn’t prove termination serves children’s needs | Agency/Trial Court: Mother’s long history of relapse, failure to maintain treatment, housing, employment, and contact; children need permanency | Affirmed: §2511(a)(8) satisfied (12+ months removed, conditions persist); §2511(b) supports termination (children’s safety, permanency, welfare) |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was appropriate | Mother: Agency failed to use reasonable reunification measures; visits were going well; court overly focused on past sobriety rather than current progress | Agency/Trial Court: Children have languished without permanency nearly 3 years; bonded to pre‑adoptive foster parents; adoption best serves children’s interests | Affirmed: goal change to adoption is in children’s best interests given need for stability and foster parent adoptive resources |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court in dependency/termination appeals)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(8))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (attenuated parent‑child bond after prolonged separation; parent must use available resources)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (consideration of child’s emotional bonds and permanency under §2511(b))
- In re I.I., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (§2511(a)(8) focuses on persistence of conditions leading to removal, not on subsequent parental efforts)