In the Int. of: J.S. Appeal of: K.W.
In the Int. of: J.S. Appeal of: K.W. No. 1533 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Cumberland County CYS became involved in 12/2014 due to parental drug use; Child adjudicated dependent 4/30/2015 and placed with paternal grandparents.
- Mother had infrequent contact and six positive heroin tests in 2015, signaling ongoing drug issues.
- Mother left Pennsylvania for Texas in 8/2015, later moved to Spokane, WA for treatment in 2016, attempting to address substance abuse.
- Mother returned to PA in 4/2016 to pursue reunification; she relapsed immediately after returning and was incarcerated on 4/29/2016; released 6/3/2016.
- As of 8/17/2016 permanency hearing, Mother resided in a domestic violence shelter and had not seen Child since 4/2016, except for one Skype call; Child thrived with paternal grandparents who sought adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the goal-change to adoption properly decided? | Mother argues the change to adoption was unsupported by the record. | CYS contends the record shows lack of progress and safety needs justify adoption. | Adoption goal affirmed. |
| Did the court abuse discretion in changing the goal to adoption based on best interests? | Mother asserts possible future reunification with services and compliance. | CYS asserts evidence shows minimal progress and continued safety concerns outweigh reunification. | Best interests support the goal change to adoption. |
| Were grounds for termination of parental rights properly proven under 2511(a) and (b)? | Mother argues termination is unjust given progress and bond considerations. | CYS argues subsections (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and (b) are satisfied; priority to child’s needs. | Parental rights terminated and adoption affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (goal change requires child-centered analysis under Juvenile Act)
- In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) (agency bears burden to prove goal change serves best interests)
- In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard in termination cases; needs and welfare focus)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clear and convincing standard defined)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (12-month framework for §2511(a)(8) termination analysis)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (irreducible minimum parental responsibilities; irreversibility of bonds considered)