In the Interest of: C.M., a Minor
In the Interest of: C.M., a Minor No. 3520 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- C.M., born July 2012, was placed in emergency protective custody on July 17, 2015 and adjudicated dependent on July 30, 2015; he has lived with his maternal grandmother since placement.
- MCCYS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights on August 26, 2016; a hearing occurred October 18, 2016; the court entered a decree terminating Mother’s rights on October 27, 2016 and changed C.M.’s permanency goal to adoption.
- Grounds for removal included Mother’s homelessness, instability (eight residences since July 2015), heroin use, domestic violence, failure to appear at hearings, missed and cancelled visits, and limited contact (one visit, at which she appeared intoxicated).
- Mother has cycled through multiple drug rehabilitation programs, currently resides in a sober living residence, is unemployed, lacks stable housing and transportation, and has untreated bipolar disorder.
- The trial court found C.M. bonded to maternal grandmother (who wishes to adopt) and not bonded to Mother; maternal grandmother would permit future contact if Mother is clean and appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | MCCYS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) | Mother conceded removal >12 months and continuing conditions but argued MCCYS failed to show termination served C.M.’s best interests | Conditions that led to removal persist (substance abuse, instability, lack of progress on service plan); termination would serve child’s need for stability | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(8) |
| Whether termination satisfies 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Mother argued no testimony showed how termination would affect C.M.; she claimed ongoing attempts to contact and work on goals despite barriers | Child is bonded with prospective adoptive kin, lacks bond with Mother; stability and permanency favor termination | Court held § 2511(b) satisfied; termination serves child’s needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination cases)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (satisfaction of any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b) is sufficient for termination)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of Baby Boy A., 517 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 1986) (parental duties are affirmative; passive interest insufficient)
- In re Shives, 525 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 1987) (parental obligation is a positive duty tied to child’s needs)
- In re Adoption of Antencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re T.R., 465 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1983) (standards for involuntary termination under Pennsylvania law)
- In re Baby Boy S., 615 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Super. 1992) (statutory criteria for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)