In the Interest of: C.D.M., Jr., a Minor
647 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2017Background
- Mother (S.M.W.) appealed the involuntary termination of her parental rights to three children (born 2004, 2005, 2007) and the change of permanency goals from reunification to adoption by York County CYF.
- Children entered agency custody in May 2014; dependency adjudication and repeated service plans followed; they remained in placement more than 28 months at the time of the termination hearing (Feb. 24, 2017).
- Mother had repeated unsuccessful interventions (Justice Works, Pressley Ridge, Life’s Beacon, Colonial House), ongoing housing instability, inconsistent contact with children, positive/ missed drug tests, and chronic mental health/substance issues; Father was largely absent and unlocatable.
- CYF filed petitions to change goals to adoption and to involuntarily terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the trial court granted relief (March 2017) and the Superior Court affirmed.
- Trial court found reunification infeasible in the foreseeable future, that statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence, and ordered measures to preserve sibling contact but concluded permanence via adoption best served the children’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYF / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was in children’s best interests | Change to adoption was not best for children because of children’s ages, bonds with Mother and with each other, and recent progress toward reunification | CYF: placement remains necessary; parents failed services; goal change evaluated under 42 Pa.C.S. §6351 factors and is appropriate | Affirmed — trial court properly applied §6351 factors and found adoption appropriate |
| Whether termination was premature because more time might allow reunification | Mother argued additional time could remedy conditions that led to removal | CYF: Mother had long history of unsuccessful services, housing/substance instability, inconsistent contact; postponing permanence would harm children | Affirmed — termination under §2511(a)(2) supported; remedy unlikely within reasonable time |
| Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests given existing parent-child and sibling bonds and lack of plan to keep all siblings together | Mother emphasized emotional bonds and siblings’ separation risk | CYF: bonds attenuated by long separations; permanence outweighs remaining parental bonds; court ordered plans to maintain sibling contact | Affirmed — §2511(b) analysis favored children’s need for stability despite some bonds |
| Whether caseworker testimony exceeded expertise and improperly influenced result | Mother argued caseworker opined beyond expertise on bonding and best interests | CYF/trial court: bonding evaluations not limited to experts; social workers/caseworkers may evaluate parent-child bonds | Affirmed — court permissibly relied on caseworker observations and other record evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental incapacity and termination principles)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§2511(b) focus on child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs; bonds analysis)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluations not always required; caseworker testimony admissible)
- In Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (deference to trial court findings in dependency and termination contexts)