In the Interest of: D.D.M., a Minor
107 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Father (M.N.) is the biological father of two children, L.A.N. and D.D.M.; both were placed in DHS/OHS care (L.A.N. 2012; D.D.M. 2013) and have remained in foster placements for over two years.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (termination petitions filed March 27, 2015 for L.A.N.; amended Nov. 24, 2015 for D.D.M.). Termination hearing held Dec. 11, 2015.
- Father had limited contact: attended three court hearings (2012–2013) and only three visits in the year before the petition; one visit with D.D.M. was cut short for irate behavior. Father spent under three hours total with the children in the prior 18 months.
- Father did not complete FSP objectives (drug/alcohol treatment, ARC programs, etc.), was re-referred multiple times, and failed to pursue scheduled home assessments or services; he had a five‑month period on bed rest (after being shot) and a subsequent five‑month incarceration during the case.
- Trial court found DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, concluded DHS proved grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and that termination served the children’s best interests under § 2511(b).
- On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; the Superior Court reviewed counsel’s compliance with Santiago/Anders, conducted an independent review, and affirmed the decrees and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify and whether goal change to adoption was appropriate | DHS failed to provide necessary paperwork/correspondence; Father had begun fulfilling objectives and was close to stable housing | DHS made numerous outreach attempts (certified mail, referrals, in‑person contact); Father knew of case and did not complete services; children in placement >2 years | Reasonable efforts found; goal change to adoption appropriate and in children’s best interests |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (2) | Conditions leading to removal were remedied; Father is best suited to care for children | Father abandoned parental duties for periods exceeding statutory timeframes, failed to complete FSP objectives, minimal contact/visitation; conditions not remedied | Grounds under § 2511(a)(1) and (2) satisfied; termination affirmed |
| Whether grounds under § 2511(a)(5) and (8) were proven (removal period, inability/will not remedy) | Father argued progress would allow remedy | Children removed >6/12 months; conditions persisted; services unlikely to remedy within reasonable time; termination would serve children’s needs | § 2511(a)(5) and (8) support termination; affirmed |
| Whether termination comported with § 2511(b) (child’s needs and bond analysis) | Termination would harm parental bond; Father asserted love and intent | Minimal or no parent‑child bond; children bonded to foster parents who provide stability; no irreparable harm shown from severing Father’s rights | Court found little/no beneficial bond and no detrimental effect from termination; § 2511(b) satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for review and bonding analysis under § 2511)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate scope of review in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): parent explanation, post‑abandonment contact, § 2511(b) effect)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider totality of circumstances and parental duties standard)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§ 2511(b) requires assessment of child’s needs including intangibles and bond)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for appellate counsel when filing an Anders brief)