2324 EDA 2024
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 11, 2025Background
- C.W. (Mother) appealed the Family Court's decision terminating her parental rights to S.L.W. (Child), born in March 2022, and changing the Child's permanency goal to adoption.
- Child was placed into care shortly after birth due to positive drug tests for PCP and marijuana and has remained placed with her maternal aunt for 28 months by the time of the hearing.
- Mother failed to comply with reunification case plan objectives, including attendance at only three visits, inconsistent participation, undisclosed whereabouts, and inability to remedy underlying causes for removal (addiction, housing).
- The trial court found no bond between Mother and Child, noting Child looks to her foster mother for all needs and that termination would not cause irreparable harm or destroy a beneficial relationship.
- On appeal, Mother argued she had made efforts for Child's well-being and that the trial court erred in handling best interests and placement issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Termination | Mother fulfilled obligations, arranged family care, no abandonment | DHS: Mother noncompliant, no parental progress | Court affirmed termination; DHS met burden, Mother's efforts insufficient |
| Child's Best Interests and Welfare (§2511(b)) | Family should have testified; trial court didn't consider all facts | DHS: No bond, no harm by termination | Trial court found thorough consideration; no error, termination in best interest |
| Child's Express Wishes | Court should inquire into Child's preference | DHS: Child too young to articulate preference | Mother waived/forfeited issue by not preserving it on appeal |
| Goal Change to Adoption | Court didn't consider all kinship placement options | DHS: Termination renders goal change challenge moot | Goal change appeal moot after termination affirmed; record supports best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards of review and best interests analysis in termination)
- In re K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super. 2020) (need for prompt permanency for child)
- In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258 (Pa. Super. 2019) (criteria for incapacity/neglect under §2511(a)(2))
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (bond assessment in best interest analysis)
- In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s need for stability trumps parent’s efforts alone)