In the Interest of: A.M.N., a Minor, In the Interest of: A.M.N., a Minor No. 3120 EDA 2016

Background

Child (b. Jan 2011) entered DHS custody after reports of neglect, maternal drug use, and later discovery Child contracted chlamydia and disclosed sexual abuse by Mother’s boyfriend during unsupervised visits. Child was placed in foster care and later with unrelated foster family.
Mother had mixed compliance with her Single Case Plan (SCP): completed substance-abuse treatment eventually, parenting classes, job training, and maintained employment, but failed to obtain/produce mental health treatment and delayed addressing some objectives.
Child’s visits with Mother were unsupervised then reverted to supervised after the abuse report; Child was diagnosed with chlamydia more than once (timing uncertain). Mother minimized the abuse and had little involvement in Child’s trauma therapy.
Psychologist Dr. William Russell performed a parenting-capacity evaluation concluding Mother lacked capacity to provide safety/permanency and recommending individual therapy, ongoing drug screens, and a polygraph regarding knowledge/involvement in the abuse; the court admitted limited testimony from Dr. Russell.
DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (filed Jan 28, 2016); after multi-day hearings, the trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Mother appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS / Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether court improperly relied on its own interpretation of drug tests (creatinine levels) to deny reunification and terminate rights	Mother: Court sua sponte inferred dilution/masking from creatinine levels and improperly used that to deny reunification and terminate rights	Court/DHS: No such finding was relied upon for termination; record shows negative/abnormal screens but no finding of ongoing drug use	Affirmed — Court did not base termination on alleged ongoing drug use and did not make the challenged finding
Whether Dr. Russell was improperly permitted to opine on how Child contracted chlamydia	Mother: Dr. Russell (non-MD) offered speculative medical opinions about chlamydia transmission and timing	Court/DHS: Dr. Russell had specialized knowledge from treating sexually abused children; he testified he could not pinpoint timing and his testimony aided understanding	Affirmed — Dr. Russell’s testimony was admissible and he did not opine definitively on how infection occurred; court gave it limited weight
Whether exclusion of maternal grandfather as witness was erroneous	Mother: Grandfather would testify Mother lived with him and he never saw her use drugs, countering DHS allegations of continued drug use	Court/DHS: Testimony would be irrelevant to the dispositive issue—Mother’s failure to complete SCP objectives (mental health) and parental incapacity	Affirmed — Court properly excluded him as irrelevant to termination grounds presented
Whether DHS met clear-and-convincing evidence to terminate under §2511(a)/(b)	Mother: Completed many SCP objectives, remedied substance abuse, maintained employment and visits; no proof she was responsible for abuse; no mental-health issues	DHS/Trial Court: Mother minimized Child’s sexual abuse, failed to obtain mental health treatment, delayed compliance, showed lack of involvement in trauma therapy; child lacks parental bond and needs permanence	Affirmed — §2511(a)(2) and (b) satisfied: repeated/incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy; termination in Child’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review in termination cases; deference to trial-court factfinding)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511: parental conduct then child’s needs)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under §2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity can be shown by refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court need only agree with any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b) to affirm)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§2511(b) factors; bond analysis is a factor but not dispositive)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (discussion of bonds, safety, continuity, and child’s best interests)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court will not indefinitely delay permanence for parental progress)
Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 664 A.2d 525 (Pa. 1995) (liberal standard for qualifying expert witnesses)
Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)