In the Int. of: H.H., Appeal of: L.L.
779 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Child (born Jan. 2016) was abandoned with a paternal cousin in Dec. 2016, adjudicated dependent Jan. 4, 2017, and reunified with Mother on Dec. 20, 2017.
- Mother again abandoned Child (located with same kin) Jan. 3, 2019; Court recommitted Child to DHS March 6, 2019; Child remained in kinship (foster) care thereafter.
- Mother moved to California in Feb. 2020, had minimal contact/visitation after May 2019, and did not complete Single Case Plan (SCP) objectives (mental-health treatment, housing/employment services, CEU assessment, consistent visitation).
- DHS filed petitions to terminate parental rights and change the permanency goal to adoption (re-filed Aug. 7, 2020); hearings were held Feb. 11 and Apr. 1, 2021; trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and changed the goal to adoption on Apr. 1, 2021.
- Mother's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; the Superior Court conducted an independent review, granted withdrawal, and affirmed termination and goal-change orders on Nov. 19, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity) | Evidence was insufficient / not clear and convincing to show Mother’s incapacity caused lack of essential care or that causes cannot be remedied | Mother repeatedly abandoned Child, failed to complete SCP objectives, had minimal contact/visitation, moved out of state, and will not remedy conditions | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination is proper under §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) | Termination would harm Child; argued bond with Mother or irreparable harm if severed | Child has no meaningful bond with Mother; Child is bonded to foster mother, identifies her as “mommy,” and would not suffer irreparable harm from termination | Affirmed: termination is in Child’s best interests under §2511(b) |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was appropriate (Juvenile Act §6351) | Goal change was improper | Child has been in long-term placement, needs permanency, and parental reunification is not feasible given Mother’s noncompliance | Affirmed: goal changed to adoption; appellate challenge moot in view of termination and, in any event, without merit |
| Whether appellate counsel’s Anders withdrawal complied with Pa. law | Mother implicitly opposed withdrawal by pursuing appeal | Counsel followed Anders/Santiago/Cartrette procedure, filed brief, notified client, and identified the appeal as frivolous | Granted: counsel permitted to withdraw after Superior Court independent review found appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure and standards for counsel seeking to withdraw on grounds an appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.3d 349 (Pa. 2009) (articulating Pennsylvania-specific Anders requirements for appointed counsel)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (defer to trial court factfinding and credibility determinations in TPR appeals)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (framework for bond analysis and best-interest inquiry under §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under §2511(a)(2))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa.Super. 2010) (parental love alone does not preclude termination; social-worker testimony suffices for bonding analysis)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa.Super. 2008) (where no evidence of a parent-child bond exists, court may infer none)