In the Interest of A.J.P., a Minor
1089 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Child (b. May 2006) was removed from Mother after allegations of physical abuse and adjudicated dependent in August 2014; placed with maternal aunt, later in foster care.
- DHS developed a case plan requiring Mother to complete drug/alcohol treatment, mental health services, parenting classes, and supervised visits; Mother was inconsistently compliant and had multiple positive drug tests.
- Mother attended some treatment beginning December 2015 but left one program voluntarily after 11 days; she began attending NET and therapy near the time of the termination hearing.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights; a March 3, 2016 evidentiary hearing was held and the court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).
- Trial court found Mother had an ongoing incapacity to parent, had not remedied conditions leading to removal, and that Child would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother’s rights were terminated; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother argued DHS failed to prove repeated/continued incapacity or that conditions were incurable | DHS and trial court relied on Mother’s history of substance abuse, inconsistent service compliance, positive drug tests, and admitted inability to care for Child | Affirmed — record supports termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination under §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) was satisfied | Mother argued insufficient evidence of harm from severing bond and no identified pre-adoptive resource | DHS and trial court pointed to minimal parent–child bond, Child’s attachments to aunt/foster home, and safety/ permanency concerns | Affirmed — trial court permissibly found no irreparable harm and best interests favored termination |
| Whether court erred in changing permanency goal to adoption | Mother contended DHS failed to show goal change was in Child’s best interest | Trial court relied on same findings supporting termination and Child’s need for permanency | Not addressed in depth on appeal (Mother’s challenge waived for lack of briefing); goal change affirmed |
| Whether Mother’s procedural/due process rights were violated | Mother raised constitutional objections to termination process | Court emphasized child’s right to permanency and that parent’s constitutional rights diminish when parental duties are not fulfilled | Denied — no merit to constitutional claims |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review of termination uses abuse-of-discretion and defers to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for evaluating termination under §2511 and appellate deference)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court may affirm termination based on any one satisfied subsection of §2511(a))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under §2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone does not preclude termination where abuse/neglect undermine the parent–child bond)