In the Interest of: A.M., a minor, Appeal of: L.M.
1041 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Child born May 2013; CYS became involved soon after due to Mother’s Vicodin addiction and Father’s homelessness and criminal history. Child placed with maternal relatives and later in foster care.
- Father has a decade-old conviction for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and is a Megan’s Law registrant; court ordered sexual offender treatment as part of a family service plan.
- Father repeatedly failed to comply with goals: tested positive for THC, missed or reduced supervised visits, refused sexual offender treatment, and did not complete a parenting evaluation despite multiple scheduled opportunities and provided transportation.
- Child spent 17 of 22 months in placement; Mother briefly reunified with Child but relapsed and Child was returned to foster care; case transferred from Allegheny to Beaver County in 2015.
- CYS sought termination of Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; after hearings the court terminated Father’s rights on June 13, 2016. Father appealed, arguing insufficient clear and convincing evidence and that he was now willing to comply.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYS proved grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | Father conceded past noncompliance but argued he is now willing to comply; blamed travel distance for missed visits and argued Child could live with him | Father repeatedly refused required services (sexual offender treatment, parenting evaluation), missed visits, and failed to remedy causes of neglect over two years | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): Father’s continued incapacity/refusal caused Child to lack essential parental care and was unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether terminating rights served Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Father argued insufficient evidence on emotional bond and sought more time after obtaining counsel | Trial court found Father’s bond weak due to minimal involvement and prioritized child’s need for permanency, safety, and stability | Court held termination met § 2511(b): severing bond would not harm Child and permanency favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility and fact findings in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa.Super. 2015) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §§ 2511(a) and (b))
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa.Super. 2004) (only one subsection of § 2511(a) need be proven to affirm termination)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa.Super. 2002) (parental promises to comply after long uncooperativeness may be rejected as untimely)