In the Int of: D.C.D./ Appeal of: Clinton Co C&YS
105 A.3d 662
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Child D.C.D., born March 31, 2011, to Mother and Father, came into CYS custody the day after birth due to prenatal drug exposure; Child has lived mainly with a foster family and bonds with them, who seek to adopt.
- Father has been incarcerated since birth, with a current aggregate sentence of 93 to 192 months and minimum release date July 15, 2018; he has had limited visitation with Child.
- Initial 2012 termination petition sought to terminate both parents; trial court denied termination for Father, finding lack of grounds; Mother had potential grounds but was not terminated due to ongoing reunification considerations.
- Superior Court reversed as to Father’s termination and remanded on Mother; on remand, trial court terminated Mother’s rights in 2013; CYS filed a second petition to terminate Father’s rights on April 26, 2013 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
- At hearing, Father consented to adoption but revoked; evidence showed few visits by Father and only one video visit; trial court found no bond and that Father’s incapacity to provide essential parental care would persist until at least 2018, with Child bonded to foster family.
- Superior Court held termination improper due to CYS’s failure to provide reasonable reunification efforts; Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to address whether reasonable efforts are a precondition to termination under §2511(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable reunification efforts are required before termination under §2511(a)(2). | CYS may terminate without prior reasonable efforts; §2511(a)(2) governs incapacity, not agency efforts. | Superior Court correctly read in a reasonable efforts requirement to protect parental rights and align with foster care reforms. | No precondition; termination allowed despite failure to provide reasonable efforts; reasonable efforts may be relevant to grounds/best interests but not a prerequisite. |
| Whether §6351(f)(9) and ASFA require withholding termination if reasonable services are not provided. | If reasonable services are not provided, termination should be barred. | §6351(f)(9) concerns timely permanency and exceptions; does not bar filing or granting termination for §2511(a)(2). | Section 6351(f)(9) does not forbid termination; it ensures timely filing and does not create a precondition on reasonable services. |
| Whether incarceration defeats the possibility of reunification and thus supports termination in the child’s best interests. | Incarceration is highly relevant to incapacity and should support termination where reunification is unlikely. | Incarceration alone does not automatically mandate termination; must be balanced with best interests and bond considerations. | Incarceration can be relevant to incapacity and best interests, but the record supports termination given Child’s bond with foster family and lack of bond with Father. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 616 Pa. 309 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration may be relevant to parental incapacity; concurrent planning)
- In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568, 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (reasonable services may be relevant to grounds and best interests)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard for termination to protect due process rights)
- Matter of Adoption of G.T.M., 506 Pa. 44, 483 A.2d 1355 (Pa. 1984) (due process considerations in termination)
- In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (ASFA-based permanency and concurrent planning)
- Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 885 (Pa. 2006) (fundamental right to care, custody, and control; strict scrutiny context)