In the Interest of B.C.
36 A.3d 601
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- CYS initiated care in Aug 2008 after multiple care concerns for Child.
- Child was removed from Father’s care; Father and Mother were involved in dependency proceedings.
- Father fled to North Dakota; Child located with law enforcement and returned to Lawrence County in Jan 2009.
- Father was incarcerated for fleeing jurisdiction; a Family Service Plan (FSP) was established after release in 2009.
- CYS petitioned for involuntary termination on Jan 10, 2011; termination hearing held Apr 8, 2011; Mother’s consent to adoption was initially confirmed.
- Father did not attend the termination hearing; his counsel cross-examined witnesses; social worker described Father’s limited bonding and non-compliance with the FSP despite some cooperation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under 2511(a)(5) given removal for at least six months and continued conditions. | Father contends FSP elements are financially prohibitive. | CYS argues clear and convincing evidence shows failure to remedy conditions and best interests favor termination. | Termination supported under 2511(a)(5). |
| Whether evidence supports termination under 2511(a)(8) given twelve months elapsed and conditions persist. | Father argues ongoing conditions and lack of remedy remain. | CYS asserts removal period exceeded one year and termination serves Child’s needs. | Termination supported under 2511(a)(8). |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under 2511(b). | Father’s inability to meet Child’s needs argues against termination. | Child is thriving in foster/pre-adoptive placement; bond concerns support termination. | Termination affirmed as in Child’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (burden on parent; deference to trial court in termination findings)
- In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; credibility of witnesses)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental obligation; need for affirmative action)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for 2511(a)(8); no need for remedial efforts under (a)(8))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond analysis and continuity considerations)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond/relationship considerations in 2511(b))
- In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (clear and convincing evidence standard)