155 A.3d 55
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Child born prematurely in Jan 2012 with significant medical needs (gastrointestinal feeding tube, developmental delays); adjudicated dependent March 20, 2013 and placed in DHS custody.
- Child was placed with pre‑adoptive foster parents (the R.s) in Sept. 2014; foster parents provided consistent medical care and therapies and the G‑tube was later removed.
- DHS filed petitions (Nov. 6, 2015) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and to change permanency goal to adoption under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351.
- At the March 16, 2016 hearing DHS introduced the dependency record and a summary of medical records and called the CUA caseworker, who testified to Mother’s inconsistent visitation, failure to complete medical training and court‑ordered services, and that the foster parents met Child’s needs.
- During defense cross‑examination Mother left the courtroom claiming illness; the court excused her, denied counsel’s request for a brief recess, refused to allow her reentry or to permit her testimony through counsel, then granted termination and goal change.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded, holding the trial court violated Mother’s due‑process rights by barring her reentry and excluding her testimony; remand required for a new hearing where Mother may present her case.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by barring Mother from reentering and testifying after she left claiming illness | Denial of reentry/testimony deprived her of due process and right to be heard | Mother voluntarily left without permission and thereby waived testimony; court need not recess | Held for Mother: court violated procedural due process (statutory and constitutional rights); decree vacated and remanded for hearing allowing Mother to present evidence |
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §2511(a)(1) and (8) | DHS evidence was insufficient to prove grounds for termination | Mother failed objectives, inconsistent visits, incomplete medical training and services — grounds established | Not decided on merits: Superior Court remanded because of the due‑process error; trial court must readdress statutory factors on remand |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was supported by Child’s best interests (Juvenile Act factors) | Goal change not shown to be best for Child; DHS presented minimal evidence | Foster parents meet Child’s medical/developmental needs; adoption appropriate for Child’s welfare | Not decided on merits: remanded for reconsideration after proper opportunity for Mother to be heard |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying a short recess/continuance when Mother left ill | Brief recess/continuance requested to check on Mother and permit return; denial was unreasonable | No recess because Mother left without court permission and disrupted critical hearing | Superior Court found denial of reentry and refusal to permit testimony violated due process; remand required. Trial court cautioned on conduct and judicial temperament |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and appellate review limitations in dependency/termination matters)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination of parental rights implicates fundamental liberty interest and due process protections)
- In re Adoption of K.G.M., 845 A.2d 861 (Pa. Super. 2004) (strict compliance with statutory procedures required in termination cases)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 69 A.3d 259 (Pa. Super. 2013) (judicial conduct admonition: patience and courtesy; errors in courtroom temperament can warrant reversal)