In the Int. of: K.M.W., Appeal of K.W.R.
238 A.3d 465
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background:
- Child born August 2015; removed March 2016 after marijuana found near infant and adjudicated dependent April 2016.
- Mother has long history of substance abuse, repeated incarcerations (total ~415 days), parole violations, and minimal compliance with court- and Agency-ordered objectives; last Agency drug screen submission was October 7, 2016.
- Court changed permanency goal to Subsidized Permanent Legal Custody (SPLC) on April 26, 2018; Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on February 5, 2019.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and changed Child’s permanency goal to Adoption on August 21, 2019 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
- Mother appealed with a single Notice of Appeal listing both the adoption and dependency docket numbers; this raised the Walker rule issue. The Superior Court declined to quash the appeal because the trial court’s decree (caption) misinformed Mother to file a single appeal — a breakdown in court operations — and affirmed the termination on the merits.
Issues:
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal must be quashed under Walker for using one notice covering multiple dockets | Mother said she mirrored the trial-court caption, intended to appeal adoption docket only, no prejudice, asked court to strike dependency docket | Walker generally requires separate notices when multiple dockets are involved, but exceptions exist where court misinformation causes the defect | Declined to quash: court found decree misled Mother (breakdown in court operations) and allowed appeal to proceed |
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | Mother said she sought treatment and contested adequacy of proof of incapacity/refusal | Agency pointed to repeated incarceration, ongoing substance use, refusal of court-ordered tri-weekly drug screens, minimal compliance, and prolonged absence depriving Child of essential parental care | Affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): record supports trial court’s findings of incapacity/refusal that could not be remedied |
| Whether termination meets Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Mother claimed an emotional bond exists and severing it would harm Child | Agency and trial court relied on expert and caseworker testimony that primary attachment is to long-term foster parents; supervised visits were insufficient to form parental bond | Affirmed under § 2511(b): terminating parental rights serves Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
| Whether Agency failed to provide adequate reunification services before filing TPR petition | Mother argued Agency provided only referrals/observed visits and thus services were inadequate | Agency noted the juvenile court changed goal to SPLC in April 2018, after which reunification services were not required | Rejected Mother’s claim: once goal changed to SPLC, Agency was not required to provide reunification services |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when an order resolves issues on multiple dockets; failure generally mandates quashal)
- Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applied Walker to appeals involving dependency and adoption dockets)
- Commonwealth v. Stansbury, 219 A.3d 157 (Pa. Super. 2019) (declined to quash where trial court misinformation caused defective notice)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (children’s fast-track precedent showing courts may overlook technical defects when no prejudice exists)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards of appellate review in termination cases and agency obligations)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration and parental incapacity analysis in termination proceedings)