In the Interest of: D.C.S., a Minor
874 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Mother (J.R.) has three children: O.G.Z. (b. 2004), W.G. Jr. (b. 2008), and D.C.S. (b. 2012). DHS became involved in 2013 due to Mother's chronic substance abuse and neglect.
- Children were adjudicated dependent in November 2013; they were briefly returned to Mother in Feb. 2014 but DHS continued supervision; commitments were reinstated after continued drug use and missed treatments.
- Mother repeatedly tested positive for drugs (PCP and marijuana) from 2014 through January 20, 2016, failed to complete substance-abuse treatment, and was hospitalized for an overdose in Oct. 2015.
- Mother’s visitation was supervised; she missed or was late to multiple visits and never progressed to unsupervised visitation because of substance concerns; caseworker testified foster/kinship parents provided primary parental care.
- DHS filed petitions (Feb. 2016) to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights and to change permanency goals to adoption; trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) (Feb. 18, 2016) and changed D.C.S.’s goal to adoption.
- Mother appealed; Superior Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) and (b) and affirmed the goal change as to D.C.S.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination satisfied § 2511(a) (grounds) | Mother: She previously complied with FSP objectives and can remedy causes; recent compliance shows capacity to reunify | DHS: Mother has chronic, ongoing substance abuse, positive drug screens through Jan. 2016, noncompletion of treatment, and missed visits — causes will not be remedied | Affirmed under § 2511(a)(2): record supports repeated incapacity/neglect and inability/unwillingness to remedy |
| Whether termination satisfies § 2511(b) (child's needs & welfare) | Mother: Termination would sever the only source of love, comfort, security; children are bonded to her | DHS: Children’s primary bonds are with foster/kinship parents; they have stability, needs met, and would not suffer irreparable harm if parental rights terminated | Affirmed under § 2511(b): foster/kinship bonds and stability favor termination; no irreparable harm shown |
| Whether permanency goal change to adoption was appropriate (D.C.S.) | Mother: She complied with FSP and children are bonded to her, so goal change unnecessary | DHS: Continued drug use, overdose, failure to complete treatment prevent safe reunification; goal change serves child’s best interests | Affirmed for D.C.S.: court found goal change to adoption in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard and trial-court credibility deference)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis: conduct then child's needs)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa.Super. 2015) (parental incapacity includes refusal and failure to perform duties)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (clear-and-convincing standard and TPR review principles)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa.Super. 2012) (emotional needs and welfare include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa.Super. 2010) (no formal bonding evaluation required; social workers may testify on bonds)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa.Super. 2010) (where no evidence of bond exists, court may infer none)