In the Int. of: K.M.S., Appeal of: C.M.
1802 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 24, 2022Background
- CYF received reports that K.M.S. (leukemia) was not receiving chemotherapy and that Mother and Father used controlled substances; there were multiple domestic-violence incidents and an eviction in Sept. 2018.
- CYF assumed care of the three children on March 28, 2019; they were adjudicated dependent April 15, 2019, and a reunification plan prescribed drug/mental-health treatment, random screens, housing/employment stability, medical releases, and supervised visitation.
- CYF filed involuntary termination petitions on Aug. 7, 2020; hearings occurred Apr. 7 and May 28, 2021 (Mother attended only the first); trial court entered decrees terminating parental rights on Aug. 12, 2021.
- Trial court found Mother failed to complete mental-health treatment, did not engage in substance-abuse treatment, lacked stable housing, and failed to secure or timely provide medical care for the children (including chemotherapy and hepatitis C treatment disclosures).
- The court concluded the children had been out of Mother’s care for more than six months (and more than 12 months), the conditions that caused removal persisted, Mother could not/would not remedy them within a reasonable time, and termination would best serve the children’s needs and welfare.
- Superior Court affirmed (Feb. 24, 2022), rejecting Mother’s argument that post-petition regression could not be considered and finding no abuse of discretion on (a)(5), (a)(8), or (b).
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | CYF/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for termination existed under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) | Mother argued she had remedied pre-removal conditions and was compliant pre-petition; her post-petition regression shouldn’t be weighted | Children were removed >6 and >12 months; Mother failed to complete mental-health/substance treatment, lacked stable housing, and failed to secure medical care; conditions persisted despite services | Affirmed: (a)(5) and (a)(8) satisfied — removal periods met, conditions persisted, Mother unlikely to remedy in reasonable time |
| Whether termination was warranted under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare) | Mother argued strong parent-child bond existed and severing it would harm the children; bonding assessment showed attachment | Trial court and caseworkers found an unhealthy bond, children were bonded and secure with foster parents, and foster placement met children’s safety and stability needs | Affirmed: (b) satisfied — court gave adequate consideration to bond and concluded termination would serve children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 856 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (plain-language limits on considering post-petition remedial efforts under § 2511(b) interpreted in broader termination analysis)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for evaluating § 2511(a) grounds, parental duties, and ASFA permanency considerations)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (need to weigh parental bond harm against harm of leaving a problematic parental relationship intact)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider children’s safety, continuity, and the stability offered by foster parents when assessing § 2511(b))