In the Int. of: Q.D.R., Appeal of: A.J.
2415 EDA 2024
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 21, 2025Background
- The case concerns A.J. (Father), whose parental rights to his child, Q.D.R., were involuntarily terminated by the Philadelphia County Court under several sections of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
- Father was convicted and incarcerated for sexual offenses involving minors and had been incarcerated for much of the child’s life.
- Father failed to comply with multiple single case plans (SCP), which called for parental visits, classes, drug screening, and caseworker cooperation.
- Testimony from caseworkers established that Father had virtually no contact with the child and made no significant effort to form or maintain a relationship.
- The child had been in foster care for over five years, had no bond with Father, and was thriving with the foster resource parent, who wished to adopt.
- The lower court found the evidence in support of termination clear and convincing, and Father appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination under § 2511(a)(2) | Incapacity was temporary due to impending release; claimed lack of support from CUA | Father failed to engage in parental duties or utilize resources for relationship; incarceration plus lack of effort | Termination supported; no abuse of discretion |
| Impact of incarceration on parental rights | Short duration until release means reunification possible | Incarceration plus lack of effort makes reunification unlikely | Length/type of incarceration and no effort support termination |
| Compliance with case plan objectives | Alleged CUA failed to inform him of objectives or facilitate visits | CUA caseworkers testified no response from Father and lack of engagement | Father's lack of compliance supports termination |
| Section 2511(b) needs and welfare analysis | Presented no argument on 2511(b) (waived) | Child has no bond with Father and is thriving with foster parent | Termination is in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343 (Pa. 2021) (sets out bifurcated analysis for parental termination; deference to orphans’ courts)
- In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258 (Pa. Super. 2019) (requires diligent parental effort toward assuming parental duties)
- In re K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super. 2020) (incarceration alone insufficient for termination, but relevant)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (child’s bond and best interests are paramount in termination)