311 A.3d 1105
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Child born Nov. 2020 with severe medical needs (CDK‑13 genetic disorder, brain lymphoma, sleep apnea, G‑tube feeding, aspiration risk) and was adjudicated dependent and placed with Foster Parents in March 2021.
- Mother has intellectual disability and mental‑health diagnoses; Father lacked stable housing at birth but later obtained housing; both had limited involvement in ongoing medical care.
- DHS filed petitions in June 2022 to terminate parental rights and change the permanency goal to adoption; hearings were held in Aug. 2022, Apr. 2023, and May 2023.
- Evidence: Parents missed many supervised visits and medical appointments despite offered transportation; Father could not identify Child’s medications, medical specialists, or competently operate/feed via G‑tube; Mother acknowledged inability to care for Child.
- Foster Parents provided continuous, specialized care, attended nearly all medical appointments, and established a strong parent‑child bond; expert evaluation concluded Mother could not safely parent Child.
- Trial court terminated both parents’ rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 and changed the goal to adoption; Superior Court affirmed the termination and goal change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.R.) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Foster Parents/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by terminating Father’s parental rights under § 2511(a) and (b) | Father argued he made substantial progress, can provide a safe home, was left to fend for himself re: appointments, and shares a bond with Child | Father failed to remedy conditions: missed visits/appointments, could not identify or manage Child’s complex medical needs, and Child is bonded to foster parents who meet her needs | Affirmed: termination supported by clear and convincing evidence under §§ 2511(a)(2) and (8); termination would not be detrimental to Child under § 2511(b) |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in changing the permanency goal to adoption | Father contended he can meet Child’s needs and goal change would harm Child | Goal change appropriate given Child’s need for permanence, progress in foster placement, and parents’ inability to care for Child | Moot as consequence of affirmed termination; goal change affirmed alternatively on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2021) (describing bifurcated § 2511 analysis and need for permanency)
- Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905 (Pa. Super. 2020) (deference to trial court credibility findings in TPR cases)
- Interest of A.M., 256 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2021) (child’s need for permanence can outweigh parental progress)
- In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439 (Pa. Super. 2021) (affirmance of termination renders goal‑change issue moot)