In the Interest of: B.S., a Minor
1012 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Child (born Oct. 2003) was adjudicated dependent after CYS filed shelter care in Nov. 2015 based on Child’s serious mental health needs, Mother’s failure to obtain treatment, and unstable housing. Child was initially placed with an older sister, then with maternal great-aunt R.F. in April 2016.
- CYS alleged Mother failed to provide essential care: intermittent housing (evicted after leaving with boyfriend), long gaps in visitation and correspondence, and nonparticipation in Child’s medical, dental, mental-health, and school appointments.
- Mother completed an initial parenting class but delayed further parenting instruction until after obtaining housing in Dec. 2016; parenting resumed in March 2017. CYS filed a petition to change goal to adoption in Dec. 2016 and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s rights in May 2017.
- At an in-camera interview and at hearing, Child expressed a desire to be adopted by foster mother R.F.; R.F. testified Child’s health, hygiene, and educational functioning improved substantially while in her care.
- The trial court changed the permanency goal to adoption (May 26, 2017) and involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights (decree May 30, 2017). Mother appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYS/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether goal should be changed from reunification to adoption | Mother contends she remedied reasons for placement (obtained housing, visited Child, participated in parenting instruction) | Mother failed to comply consistently with the family plan; Child needs permanence; Child wants adoption | Goal change affirmed; Mother waived substantive challenge in brief and, on the merits, goal change is in Child’s best interest |
| Whether Mother’s parental rights should be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) (incapacity causing lack of essential care) | Mother argues she made substantial progress and eliminated original causes for removal | Mother’s repeated/incapacitating neglect (housing abandonment, inconsistent contact, nonparticipation in care) left Child without essential care and causes will not be remedied | Termination under §2511(a)(2) affirmed |
| Whether conditions leading to removal were remedied | Mother says she obtained housing and completed parenting work | Mother’s progress was recent and sporadic; long period of minimal effort and failure to address Child’s medical/mental health needs | Court held conditions not sufficiently remedied and permanence required; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination serves Child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond and welfare) | Mother asserts a significant bond exists and that reunification is preferable | Child thrived in foster placement, wants adoption, and severing the parental relationship will not be detrimental; foster placement provides stability, medical care, and educational progress | Termination under §2511(b) affirmed; adoption found to be in Child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis explained)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b))
- 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 may include refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (best-interest analysis may consider bond but also child’s safety, stability, and foster relationship)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors for best-interest/bond analysis)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be subordinated indefinitely to parent’s hoped-for progress)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for goal change proceedings)
- In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statutory factors for goal-change analysis)