In the Interest of: A.J.P., a Minor
964 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Child A.J.P. (b. May 2006) was removed from mother's custody for alleged abuse and marijuana use and adjudicated dependent in August 2014.
- Father (D.B.) has been incarcerated throughout the case; in Sept. 2015 he pled guilty to third‑degree murder and aggravated assault and was sentenced to 22½ to 45 years, housed in a restricted unit with no visitor contact.
- DHS assigned Father a single case plan (to remain in communication with the child); DHS filed a petition (Feb. 16, 2016) seeking involuntary termination of parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b).
- Trial court held a March 3, 2016 hearing (testimony from CUA/NET case managers and Father); by decree entered March 3, 2016 the court involuntarily terminated Father’s parental rights.
- Father appealed, arguing incarceration alone cannot support termination and asserting he never received the case plan; the Superior Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination permissible under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) | DHS sought termination for abandonment/other grounds under (a)(1) | Father argued incarceration alone cannot support termination and raised procedural claims | Court did not reach § 2511(a)(1) (not necessary to affirm); Father’s appeal on goal change waived for lack of briefed claim |
| Whether termination permissible under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | DHS argued Father’s long incarceration caused repeated/incapacity leaving child without essential parental care and conditions cannot be remedied | Father argued incarceration alone is insufficient and he did not receive the case plan so could not remedy conditions | Affirmed: incarceration and lengthy remaining sentence are highly relevant to incapacity under § 2511(a)(2); record supports termination |
| Whether termination meets best interests analysis under § 2511(b) | DHS argued child’s needs, lack of strong parent–child bond, and foster placement support termination | Father argued bond and best‑interest factors weigh against termination | Affirmed: caseworker testimony showed a weak relationship and no evidence of an important parent–child bond; termination would not be detrimental to child’s welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2); length of confinement relevant)
- In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (discussion of abandonment standard under prior law)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of a bond exists, court may infer no bond)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may weigh bond against child’s safety, stability, and continuity)