256 A.3d 1263
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Child (A.M.) removed from Mother in Nov 2017 after CYF received reports of drug abuse; adjudicated dependent April 2018 and placed in foster care since then.
- CYF filed petitions July 30, 2020 to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights.
- Mother had multiple positive drug tests in 2017–2018, long periods of no contact with CYF (notably June 2018–May 2019), and a jail term Dec 2018–Aug 2019; testing and service engagement thereafter were sporadic.
- Mother visited irregularly (22 visits total over the dependency), ceased visits after Feb 2020 reporting they harmed Child, and admitted she could not assume custody at the time of the hearing.
- Child has lived with the same foster parents ~33 months, regards them as primary caregivers, has improved behavior and school performance in their care, and wishes to remain with them.
- Trial court granted goal change and termination (Jan. 2021); Superior Court affirmed the orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYF/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties) | Mother argued she had made progress (treatment, housing, employment) and disputed that her conduct met the statutory standard for termination | CYF argued Mother repeatedly failed to cooperate with services, had long periods of no contact, ceased visitation, and failed to perform parental duties in the six months before the petition | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1): Mother failed to perform parental duties and did not maintain contact or engage services sufficient for reunification |
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interest under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b) | Mother contended termination was not in Child’s best interest because she loved Child and had begun addressing substance and mental health issues | CYF and GAL argued Child was bonded to foster parents, was thriving in that placement, and visits with Mother caused behavioral regression | Court held termination was in Child’s best interest: Child’s stability, bond with foster parents, and improved functioning outweighed Mother’s limited/unstable bond |
| Whether changing the permanency goal to adoption was proper | Mother argued goal change was inappropriate given her recent progress and stated intent to continue reunification efforts | CYF argued goal change was warranted given long placement duration, Mother’s inconsistent engagement, and Child’s established pre-adoptive home | Court found goal change proper; affirmed as moot in light of termination, and on the merits concluded the statutory factors supported adoption as the permanency goal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2018) (party seeking termination must prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322 (Pa. Super. 2017) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b) required to affirm termination)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may rely on social workers’ and caseworkers’ testimony in best-interest analysis)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (courts should consider whether children are in a pre-adoptive home and bonds with foster parents)
- Interest of L.T., 158 A.3d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2017) (factors to analyze when changing permanency goal)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (avoidance of children languishing indefinitely in foster care)