In the Int. of: H.W., Appeal of: M.W.
1217 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 30, 2021Background
- Child H.W. born March 2017; Father (M.W.) has been incarcerated since before Child’s birth and throughout Child’s life.
- DHS removed Child to foster care and adjudicated him dependent in June 2019; DHS filed petitions in Feb 2021 to involuntarily terminate both parents’ rights and to change the permanency goal to adoption.
- Father appeared by phone at hearings (Apr. 28 and June 1, 2021); his minimum release date was May 2022. His criminal history was admitted; he was never identified as a perpetrator of abuse.
- Father’s case-plan objectives were limited: maintain contact with the case manager; he reported participation in GED and parenting classes in prison (parenting suspended during COVID). He requested virtual visits; the case manager’s attempt to arrange them went unanswered.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) and changed the goal to adoption. The Superior Court reversed, holding termination under (5) and (8) improper because Child was never in Father’s care, and that DHS failed to prove (a)(1) and (a)(2) by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds to terminate under §2511(a)(1) and (2) | Father argued he complied with case-plan goals, pursued prison programs, sought virtual visits, and that incarceration alone cannot justify termination | DHS relied largely on Father’s incarceration and unavailability as a resource to support termination | Reversed: DHS did not prove (a)(1)/(a)(2) by clear and convincing evidence; incarceration alone insufficient and Father had made efforts to maintain contact |
| Whether termination could be based on §2511(a)(5) and (8) (conditions of removal) | Father argued Child was never in his care, so these provisions do not apply | DHS sought termination under these subsections | Reversed: (a)(5) and (a)(8) inapplicable because Child was never removed from Father’s care |
| Whether terminating Father’s rights was in Child’s best interests under §2511(b) | Father contended there was no proof of a detrimental bond or irreparable harm from preserving the parental relationship | DHS argued termination and severing of bond served Child’s needs and welfare | Not reached on merits: appellate court remanded reversal of (a) grounds meant no need to decide (b) because (b) is considered only after (a) is established |
| Whether change of permanency goal to adoption was supported | Father argued goal change relied on improper termination findings and was not shown to be in Child’s best interest | DHS argued adoption was appropriate given the dependency history and parental unavailability | Reversed: Goal change vacated because it depended on reversed termination findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (termination under §§2511(a)(5) and (8) inappropriate where child was never in parent’s care)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (incarceration alone does not automatically support termination; incarcerated parent must utilize available resources to maintain a parental role)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explains bifurcated §2511 analysis: first prove statutory grounds under (a), then consider child’s needs and welfare under (b))