In the Interest of: B.G.H., a Minor
In the Interest of: B.G.H., a Minor No. 586 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Child (born Dec. 2013) was removed days after birth after DHS learned Mother tested positive for marijuana and parents lacked adequate supplies and stable housing; Child placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent.
- Father (K.G.) had a criminal history including conviction for indecent sexual assault of a child and repeated noncompliance with sex-offender registration, resulting in repeated incarcerations throughout Child’s life.
- DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights in Aug. 2015; trial court held a termination hearing Feb. 6, 2017 and entered decree terminating Father’s rights on Feb. 6, 2017.
- Trial court found Father repeatedly incarcerated, failed to meet Single Case Plan objectives (legal compliance, sex-offender treatment, drug/mental-health treatment), did not consistently visit or communicate with Child, and had not remedied barriers to care.
- Child had lived with same foster parents since six days old, is bonded to them, and refers to them as “mom” and “Baba;” foster home provides stability and meets Child’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity) | Father argued he completed programs, pursued sobriety, would be released soon and would secure housing to care for Child | Father’s repeated incarcerations and failure to remedy legal, registration, drug, and mental-health problems made him incapable of providing essential parental care | Affirmed: (a)(2) satisfied — repeated incarceration and unremedied incapacity justified termination |
| Whether termination satisfied other § 2511(a) grounds (subsections 1,5,8) | Father contended he met FSP goals and had capacity to parent | DHS relied on failure to comply with SCP goals, criminal/legal noncompliance, lack of contact, and incapacity | Court affirmed termination under at least one § 2511(a) ground; (a)(2) dispositive |
| Whether termination met best-interest test under § 2511(b) | Father relied on sending cards/pictures and claimed a parent-child bond | DHS and trial court emphasized Child’s established bond with foster parents, Child’s needs for stability, and that Father’s gestures did not create meaningful relationship | Affirmed: termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
| Whether lack of separate counsel for Child required reversal | Father did not raise conflict at trial; GAL (an attorney) represented child’s legal and best interests | Trial court appointed GAL who capably represented child; no conflict shown | No reversible error; appointment of separate counsel not required here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2); length of confinement relevant to remedial capacity)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to satisfy § 2511(a)(2))
- In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review in parental termination appeals)
- In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 2008) (termination supported by repeated incarcerations and failure to be present for child)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (child’s life cannot be put on hold pending parental improvement)
- In re B.C., 36 A.3d 601 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parental conduct then best interests)