In the Interest of: C.M.Z., Jr.,a Minor
1594 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- DHS investigated in July–October 2013 after reports of no food in the home, parental substance use, and used needles; children were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care in October 2013.
- Father had case plan requirements (mental‑health treatment, drug/alcohol treatment and screenings, parenting classes, visitation) and had periods of noncompliance and missed services; his ARC case was closed in January 2014 for failure to engage.
- Father stopped visiting the children after October 29, 2015; foster mother was meeting the children’s daily, medical, and academic needs and they were in a pre‑adoptive placement.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights; termination hearing held May 5, 2016, with testimony from CUA/DHS caseworkers and Father.
- Trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b); counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw; Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Anders/Santiago and conducted independent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) grounds support termination | Father’s repeated incapacity/refusal to remedy caused children to lack essential parental care; Father failed to complete plan and ceased visitation | Father claimed current treatment and parenting‑class completion but produced no documentation and had spotty compliance | Held: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied — clear and convincing evidence of repeated incapacity and inability/willingness to remedy |
| Whether termination meets § 2511(b) best‑interests test | Children have stability, care, and attachment to foster mother; they do not want visits; terminating Father would not cause permanent emotional harm | Father contended he wants reunification and fosters a relationship (but limited recent contact) | Held: § 2511(b) satisfied — primary consideration of children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs favors termination |
| Whether counsel properly sought leave to withdraw via Anders/Santiago procedure | Counsel asserts appeal frivolous, filed Anders brief, served Father, and followed Santiago content requirements | Father (through counsel) retained right to raise issues or hire private counsel; no non‑frivolous issues identified | Held: Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago; Superior Court independently reviewed record and granted withdrawal, affirming termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511(a) and (b), bond evaluation guidance)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings in dependency/TPR matters)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of § 2511 analysis)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental incapacity includes refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
- In re V.E. & I.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders principles to TPR appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (requirements for counsel’s petition to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (content requirements for Anders brief)