In the Interest of: A.J.D., a Minor
In the Interest of: A.J.D., a Minor No. 2813 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- DHS filed petitions (May–July 2016) seeking involuntary termination of Mother S.C.’s parental rights to two children (born 2008 and 2012) and changed their permanency goal to adoption; the trial court held the hearing July 21, 2016 (Mother did not appear).
- Children had been placed in DHS custody in October 2014 after unsafe housing, lack of utilities, and parental substance-use/mental-health concerns; they remained in foster care throughout the case.
- Mother repeatedly tested positive for amphetamines/opioids, provided diluted drug screens, failed to complete court-ordered dual-diagnosis/mental-health programs, lacked stable housing, and had supervised visits deemed unproductive.
- The trial court found DHS’s case managers’ testimony credible and concluded Mother had been noncompliant for the relevant periods; the court terminated parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (8) and (b).
- Mother appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court opinion and reasoning that clear and convincing evidence supported termination and the goal change to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(1) was warranted (failure/refusal to perform parental duties for 6+ months) | Mother failed to complete SCP objectives (treatment, housing, supervised visits), had positive/ diluted drug screens, and thus evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishment or refusal/failure to perform duties | Mother argued (implicitly) that she had taken steps (e.g., enrollment certificates, some program attendance) and/or had mitigating health issues | Court held DHS proved (clear & convincing) §2511(a)(1): Mother failed/refused to perform duties and conduct over the relevant period supported termination |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was warranted (repeated/incapacity causing lack of essential parental care) | Conditions (substance use, untreated mental health, no stable housing, unproductive visits) persisted and could not be remedied by Mother within a reasonable time | Mother pointed to some program participation and hospitalization for treatment; argued circumstances limited by health/environmental factors | Court held DHS proved §2511(a)(2): Mother’s incapacity/neglect continued and she could not remedy conditions to provide essential care |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(8) was warranted (12+ months in placement and conditions persist) | Children had been in care since Oct 2014 (>12 months); conditions that led to removal continued; termination served children’s needs for stability | Mother argued ongoing efforts and recent treatment/hospitalization and that environmental factors should be considered | Court held DHS proved §2511(a)(8): statutory time requirement met and present conditions justified termination in children’s best interest |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (best interests, bond analysis) and whether goal change to adoption was proper | No meaningful parental bond; children attached to foster parents who provided stability; termination and goal change served children's developmental, physical and emotional needs | Mother contended bond/visitation history and treatment steps; urged preservation of parental rights | Court held §2511(b) satisfied: no positive parent–child bond; termination and goal change to adoption were in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of review in termination appeals).
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one §2511(a) ground).
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear-and-convincing standard defined).
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-factor inquiry for §2511(a)(1): explanation, post-abandonment contact, §2511(b) effect).
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole history, not mechanically apply six‑month period).
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (requirement to evaluate parent–child bond).
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no mandatory expert bonding evaluation).
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (courts may rely on social‑worker observations for bond analysis).
- In re Involuntary Termination of C.W.S.M. & K.A.L.M., 839 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2003) (bond analysis under §2511(b)).
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§2511(a)(1) proof requires conduct for the statutory period).
- Adoption of C.A.W., 683 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. 1996) (§2511(a)(2) addresses ongoing inability to provide essential parental care).
- In re T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (child’s need for stability and permanence central to §2511(b) analysis).
- In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (incarceration does not preclude termination when parent fails to use available resources to support relationship).