232 A.3d 937
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- DHS became involved in Sept. 2016 after Mother repeatedly sought ER care for Child (Sickle Cell Disease) claiming bedbug infestations in their bodies; providers found no evidence and raised mental‑health concerns. Child adjudicated dependent Jan. 2017 and placed with maternal aunt (kinship).
- Dr. Foote (Feb. 2017) diagnosed Mother with delusional disorder and recommended individual therapy and psychiatric evaluation; the case plan required mental‑health treatment and supervised visits.
- Dr. Russell’s parenting‑capacity evaluation (April 2018) concluded Mother lacked capacity and recommended weekly therapy with a clinician experienced in delusional disorder and continued supervised visitation.
- Mother began weekly therapy with Dr. Burton (Aug. 2018); Dr. Burton diagnosed adjustment disorder, found Mother had improved, and recommended reunification with supervision.
- DHS filed petitions to change goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (Feb. 2019). The juvenile court granted goal change and terminated parental rights (July 2019).
- The Superior Court vacated both the goal‑change and termination orders, finding DHS failed to show clear and convincing grounds for termination and that the court and agency had not made or documented reasonable efforts required before changing the permanency goal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother continued to suffer untreated mental‑health incapacity; conditions causing removal persisted and reunification was not viable after >12 months | Mother complied with the plan, attended weekly therapy, treating clinicians recommended reunification with supervision, and agency failed to provide/coordinate reasonable services | Reversed — DHS did not meet clear and convincing standard; lack of reasonable efforts and reliance on stale/incomplete evaluations fatal to termination finding |
| Whether termination met §2511(b) (child’s best interests) | Termination would serve Child’s safety, stability, and welfare; child bonded with aunt/pre‑adoptive placement | Mother argued bond exists and no evidence of irreparable harm; recent therapists recommended reunification | Not reached on the merits — court vacated termination under §2511(a) and therefore did not affirm §2511(b) relief |
| Whether Mother’s due‑process rights were violated by exclusion of mental‑health reports/experts | Trial court acted within discretion in managing the record | Mother contended her experts’ favorable reports were blocked from record and prevented full defense | Conceded in Mother’s brief that reports were admitted; court did not find reversible due‑process error and issue was not further addressed |
| Whether the court properly changed permanency goal to adoption | DHS: goal change appropriate after multi‑year placement and perceived lack of progress | Mother: DHS and CUA failed to make reasonable efforts, Mother was making progress in therapy, goal change premature | Reversed — trial court failed to analyze required §6351(f) factors, did not find reasonable efforts, and changed goal prematurely |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency reasonable‑efforts inquiry may be relevant to termination analysis)
- In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (permanency‑hearing purposes and when an agency should pursue adoption/termination)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review accepts trial‑court factual findings supported by record but reviews legal conclusions de novo)
- In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parent’s duty to cooperate with rehabilitative services)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (standard for upholding termination where hearing court’s findings are supported by competent evidence)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clarifying standard of proof for involuntary termination)
- In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for permanency‑goal changes)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requirement to file separate notices of appeal when a single order resolves issues on multiple dockets)