In the interest of: A.S.M.B., a Minor
In the interest of: A.S.M.B., a Minor No. 2363 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Apr 6, 2017Background
- Mother (A.R.D.) had four children removed and adjudicated dependent between 2012–2014 after injuries, housing instability, criminal charges, and threats; DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate her parental rights in Sept. 2015.
- Over multiple years Mother completed some services (parenting, anger management), maintained housing and some income, and attended supervised visits, but had inconsistent mental health treatment and did not follow through on Dr. Russell’s recommended psychiatric evaluation and joint therapy.
- A parenting capacity evaluation by psychologist William Russell found Mother suffered from chronic trauma, PTSD/bipolar symptoms, denial about the impact on parenting, and lacked capacity to safely parent the children at the time of evaluation.
- CUA case manager testified Mother’s visits remained supervised; caseworker believed a newborn would destabilize Mother’s situation and that children adapted to pre-adoptive caregivers.
- The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) on June 21, 2016; this appeal challenges termination and related permanency goal changes. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother abandoned or was incapable under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity) | Mother argued she substantially completed reunification objectives, stabilized housing/income, completed parenting and related classes, and improved since Dr. Russell’s evaluation | DHS/CT argued Mother’s chronic mental-health issues remained unresolved, she failed to follow key recommendations (psychiatric eval, consistent therapy), and longstanding incapacity left children without essential parental care | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2): Mother’s incapacity persisted and was unlikely to be remedied in foreseeable future |
| Whether the trial court placed undue weight on Dr. Russell’s parenting-capacity evaluation | Mother claimed the evaluation was stale and subjective/speculative given subsequent progress | DHS showed Dr. Russell testified at hearing and explained his conclusions; court found evaluation credible and probative | Court held evaluation was properly weighed; no abuse of discretion in relying on it |
| Whether terminating rights served children’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond and welfare) | Mother asserted children were bonded to her and would suffer irreparable harm if rights terminated | DHS/CT noted children had attachments to foster/pre-adoptive caregivers, limited parent/child bond with Mother, and stability needs favored permanency | Court held termination met §2511(b): bonds were not parent/child bonds and children would not suffer irreparable harm; adoption served their needs |
| Challenge to permanency goal changes to adoption (procedural/merits) | Mother listed goal-change challenge but provided no developed argument or legal authority | DHS/CT moved goal changes and court announced intent to change goals at June 21 hearing | Court held Mother waived any meaningful challenge to goal-change orders for failure to develop argument; affirmed goal changes |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review in TPR appeals; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues inadequately briefed are waived)
- In re A.C., 991 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate waiver when briefs fail to develop claims)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511 analysis—parental conduct then child best interests)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one subsection of §2511(a) and §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for §2511(a)(2) termination)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (grounds for TPR may include incapacity and refusal, not only affirmative misconduct)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (a child’s need for permanence cannot be held in abeyance pending parental progress)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (best-interest analysis may include bond but also emphasizes child safety, stability, continuity)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court should consider continuity and effect of severing bonds)