In the Interest of: C.E.L.M.P., a Minor
In the Interest of: C.E.L.M.P., a Minor No. 3222 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Child (born Jan. 2010) was removed after forensic interviews revealed sexual abuse by two siblings; Child adjudicated dependent and placed in pre-adoptive foster care for ~23 months.
- DHS developed a Single Case Plan (SCP) for Father requiring parenting classes, mental‑health treatment, domestic‑violence counseling, and appropriate supervised visitation; Father failed to document completion of most objectives.
- Visits were reduced from unsupervised to supervised, then suspended after Father took Child to see an abusing sibling, coached Child during visits, violated court orders (whispering, hiding behind a newspaper), and made harassing contact with the foster parent.
- DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); trial court granted termination on Sept. 13, 2016; Father appealed.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence Father failed/refused to perform parental duties for the six months before the petition, posed a ‘‘grave threat’’ during visits, had not engaged meaningfully in Child’s therapy, and that termination served Child’s developmental, emotional, and welfare needs.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(1) was warranted (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father contended he worked on SCP objectives and disputed DHS testimony; claimed limited proof of failure | Father failed to document classes/treatment, did not sign releases, coached Child, violated visitation orders, visits declined to suspension | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1) (Father failed/refused duties for 6+ months) |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was warranted (parental incapacity) | (argued generally against sufficiency) | DHS presented evidence of ongoing incapacity to protect Child and comply with orders | Court relied on (a)(1) and (b); did not need to decide other (a) grounds explicitly |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(5)/(8) was warranted (parental incapacity/child fit) | (argued insufficient proof) | DHS showed long placement, lack of meaningful contact, and risk to Child’s safety | Court affirmed termination (sufficient grounds under at least one (a) subsection) |
| Whether termination under §2511(b) was in Child’s best interests (needs and welfare) | Father relied on limited visit interactions (discussing day, books, medals) to show bond | DHS showed no positive, beneficial bond; Child is bonded to foster parent, in therapy, happy and safe; severance would not cause irreparable harm | Court held termination would best serve Child’s developmental, emotional, and welfare needs under §2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) and (b))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (considerations for §2511(a)(1) and need to assess totality of circumstances)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative, good‑faith efforts)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one (a) ground plus (b) required to affirm)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§2511(b) needs-and-welfare factors: love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of parent–child bond exists, court may infer none)