In the Interest of: A.S.B., Jr., a Minor
1275 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Child (born 2010) entered DHS involvement after reports in 2011 that he was left with a relative who overdosed and the home showed signs of drug use and unsanitary conditions. DHS opened services and the child was adjudicated dependent in 2012.
- Father has a long history of substance abuse, intermittent treatment (methadone, inpatient attempts), criminal charges and periods of incarceration; DHS repeatedly referred him for drug/mental-health treatment, CEU assessment, parenting evaluation (PCE), and housing verification.
- Child entered foster care multiple times (placements in Aug 2012, Dec 2013, Aug 2015) and had been continuously in DHS custody for 16 months at the time of the termination trial.
- Father repeatedly failed to complete FSP/SCP objectives: missed/failed drug screens, did not complete PCE, did not engage in sustained treatment, missed or stopped visiting the child (last verified visits Aug–Oct 2016), and did not permit home assessments.
- DHS filed involuntary termination and goal-change petitions on Oct 17, 2016. After a two‑day hearing (Jan. 17 and Mar. 15, 2017), the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) and changed the permanency goal to adoption. Father appealed.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s findings that DHS proved statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, Father lacked a parental bond with the child, and adoption served the child’s needs and welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination under §2511(a)(1) — failure/refusal to perform parental duties for 6+ months | Father repeatedly failed to complete SCP objectives, missed visits, drug screens, PCE, and housing assessments — conduct shows settled purpose or refusal to perform duties | Record lacks sufficient evidence beyond Father’s testimony; DHS relied on materials not properly in evidence (Exhibit A) and court had insufficient information | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of sustained failure to perform duties; trial court properly relied on admitted exhibits and testimony |
| Termination under §2511(a)(2) — repeated incapacity/neglect causing child to lack essential parental care | Father’s substance use, noncompliance with treatment, housing instability, missed visits and incarceration left child without essential parental care; conditions not remedied | Father disputes sufficiency of evidence and argues inability to evaluate his remediation efforts | Affirmed: Father failed to remedy conditions; DHS met burden under (a)(2) |
| Termination under §2511(a)(5) & (8) — conditions causing placement persist and child in care 12+ months | Child in DHS custody 16 months; conditions that led to removal persist; services provided but ineffective; adoption is in child’s best interests | Father argues services were inadequate or evidence insufficient to show unremediable conditions | Affirmed: conditions continued, services were reasonable and adoption best served child’s welfare |
| Section 2511(b) — effect on parent‑child bond and child’s needs/welfare | There was no meaningful bond; child is bonded to foster parent; termination would not destroy a beneficial relationship; adoption promotes stability | Father contends absence of direct testimony from the child and that bond analysis was incomplete | Affirmed: testimony of DHS caseworker credible; no parental bond; termination promoted child's emotional needs and welfare |
| Change of permanency goal to adoption | Child needs permanency; Father not ready to parent and failed SCP objectives; foster parent is pre‑adoptive and child thriving | Father argues DHS did not meet burden to justify goal change | Affirmed: goal change to adoption was in child’s best interest given child’s needs and Father's noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for termination and need to consider totality of circumstances)
- In C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory grounds and best interests under §2511(b))
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single proper subsection of §2511(a))
- Ney v. Ney, 917 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court and appellate court may not rely on evidence outside the record)
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (same prohibition on off‑the‑record facts)
- In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (clear and convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)
- In re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (six‑month rule not to be applied mechanically; consider whole history)
- In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1997) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.T., 817 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2001) (agency not required to postpone permanency indefinitely waiting for parental remediation)
- In re N.W., 851 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 2004) (termination process should be completed within reasonable temporal limits)
- In re: Adoption of K.I., 938 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (§2511(a)(8) focuses on present conditions that led to placement)
- In re KZ.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (courts may rely on social‑worker observations in bond analysis)