In the Interest of: A.A.F., Jr., a Minor
In the Interest of: A.A.F., Jr., a Minor No. 2903 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 12, 2017Background
- Children were removed from Parents' care on December 1, 2014 after DHS reports of unsafe, unsanitary housing, parental drug use, and neglect; children remained in DHS custody and were adjudicated dependent.
- DHS developed Single Case Plans (SCPs) for Mother and Father requiring housing verification, mental-health/drug treatment, parenting services, identification, employment verification, and supervised visitation.
- Over the case history (2015–2016) Father failed to provide a current address or allow home assessment, did not complete ARC housing services, refused or failed to engage in mental-health services, missed roughly one quarter of supervised visits, and delayed obtaining state ID until after the termination petition was filed.
- Children were placed in a pre-adoptive foster home and were described as bonded to foster parents; Child recognized Father at visits but had no deeper parent–child bond.
- DHS filed petitions on April 27, 2016 to involuntarily terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and to change permanency goal to adoption; the trial court granted termination and goal change and Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS met clear-and-convincing burden to terminate Father’s parental rights under §2511(a) | Termination unsupported by sufficient evidence; Father was working on SCP objectives | Father repeatedly failed to comply with SCPs and court orders (no address, no pay stubs, refused mental-health, delayed ID); conduct shows settled purpose or failure to perform duties | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a) |
| Whether termination serves Child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b) (bond analysis) | Child bonded and affectionate with Father; termination would harm Child | Evidence showed no meaningful, beneficial parent–child bond and Child is bonded with pre-adoptive foster parents who provide stability | Affirmed: termination would not destroy a necessary beneficial relationship and served Child’s needs/welfare |
| Whether change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption was proper | Goal change premature because Father was making progress on SCPs | Parents had not remedied conditions after extended time; Children need permanency; DHS made reasonable reunification efforts | Affirmed: goal change to adoption was in Child’s best interest |
| Whether specific statutory grounds (a)(1),(2),(5),(8)) were met | Father did not identify a particular subsection failure; argued overall insufficiency | Trial court applied the statutes, finding continued incapacity/noncompliance, conditions persisted beyond statutory periods, and termination best served Child | Affirmed: at least one §2511(a) ground proved (court relied on multiple subsections) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (clarified burden and bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural guidance on termination analysis)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole case history and not mechanically apply six-month period)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for §2511(a)(1) and bond inquiry under §2511(b))