In the Interest of: A.F., a Minor
986 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- DHS became involved in the family after a 2009 GPS report that Mother tested positive for opiates at a child's birth and multiple later reports of unsafe, squalid housing, active drug use, and truancy.
- All three children (A.F., F.F. Jr., and C.M.) were removed from Mother's care between January–June 2015 and placed in foster care or with relatives; dependency proceedings and permanency reviews continued through 2016–2017.
- Mother had multiple arrests on drug-related charges (2012, 2014–2016) and significant periods of incarceration (notably Aug 11, 2016–Feb 21, 2017). She failed to comply with court-ordered case plan objectives (drug treatment/CEU, housing, parenting services) and did not provide documentation of claimed treatment.
- During ~25 months the children were in DHS custody, Mother's visits were infrequent, not expanded to unsupervised visits, and DHS reported that the children were bonded to foster caregivers who provided stable daily care.
- DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and § 2511(b). The Family Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds to terminate and changed the goal to adoption (order dated Feb 22, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reasonable efforts were made and goal change to adoption appropriate | DHS: reasonable efforts and services were provided; children need permanence; adoption serves children's safety and welfare | Mother: challenges adequacy of reunification efforts and asserts goal change violates federal/state permanency requirements | Court: held efforts and goal change were appropriate and in children’s best interests; adoption ordered |
| Whether § 2511(a)(1) grounds established (failure to perform parental duties over 6 months) | DHS: Mother failed to comply with SCP, drug treatment, housing, visitation for requisite period | Mother: asserts efforts to remedy conditions (or challenges scope of proof) | Court: found clear and convincing evidence of failure/refusal to perform parental duties; (a)(1) satisfied |
| Whether § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) grounds established (incapacity/not remedied; removal duration/conditions persist) | DHS: repeated incapacity/refusal; conditions causing removal persist; children removed long enough; termination best serves welfare | Mother: incarceration and instability explain noncompliance; argues conditions could be remedied | Court: concluded causes could not/would not be remedied within reasonable time; (a)(2), (5), (8) satisfied |
| Whether § 2511(b) best-interest analysis precludes termination (parental bond; harm from severance) | DHS: social worker testimony showed children bonded to foster caregivers, would not suffer irreparable harm if parental rights terminated | Mother: contends bond with mother and emotional impact warrant preservation of rights | Court: found minimal/attenuated parent-child bonds and strong caregiver bonds; termination would not cause irreparable harm and was in children's best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review in TPR appeals and § 2511 overview)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (review principles for dependency/termination)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial-court factfinding and appellate scope)
- In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (burden of proof and credibility in TPR)
- In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (upholding TPR if any proper statutory basis exists)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (incarceration does not toll parental duties; duties continue)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (formulation of § 2511(a)(2) requirements)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole case history; parental duty requires affirmative performance)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (§ 2511(a)(2) can include refusal/incapacity; need for diligent efforts)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(8))
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§ 2511(b) best-interests factors and bond analysis)
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parents must meet irreducible minimum requirements of care)