In the Interest of: D.F., a Minor, Appeal of: S.S.
165 A.3d 960
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child (D.F.) born August 2015; THC found in umbilical cord; CYS obtained protective custody and Child placed in licensed foster care immediately after discharge.
- Mother has history with CYS, admitted medication misuse during pregnancy, refused initial drug screen, and a hospital psychiatric evaluation found high risk for substance abuse.
- Child adjudicated dependent September 2015; court ordered parenting, drug/alcohol, psychological, and parental-capacity evaluations and compliance with recommendations.
- Mother attended some services (parenting class, early inpatient/90 days outpatient) but was inconsistent thereafter: missed appointments, diluted/refused drug screens, one post-placement THC-positive sample, and attended 32 of 76 visits.
- CYS filed petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); at the October 6, 2016 hearing Mother was absent and her oral continuance request was denied.
- Trial court relied on bonding assessment and testimony showing Child is securely attached to foster/pre-adoptive mother, found Mother’s mental-health and substance issues persisted and could not/would not be remedied, and terminated Mother’s parental rights; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying an oral continuance for Mother’s alleged medical illness | Mother: she had bronchial pneumonia on hearing day and would have given material testimony; denial prevented her testimony | CYS: Mother had actual notice, counsel had no admissible proof of illness, Mother had been nonresponsive and skipped hearings and visits; delay would harm child | Denial proper; Mother had notice, counsel offered no competent evidence of incapacitating illness, court didn’t abuse discretion |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a) (principally (a)(2)) | Mother: she made some efforts and would have offered evidence if present; contended goal was concurrent reunification/adoption | CYS: Mother’s repeated incapacity/refusal (mental health/substance use, missed treatment, missed visits) left Child without essential parental care and causes will not be remedied | Affirmed as to §2511(a)(2): record supports findings Mother failed to perform parental duties and cannot provide essential care; causes unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether termination satisfied §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare/bond analysis) | Mother: severing rights harmful; implied bond existed | CYS: formal bonding assessment and testimony show Child strongly bonded to foster mother; severance would not harm Child and is in Child’s best interests | Affirmed as to §2511(b): no meaningful parental bond to Mother and termination serves Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1964) (appellate review of continuance decisions limited to abuse of discretion)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court factfinding and credibility in TPR appeals)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative, consistent effort to meet child’s needs)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmation that only one subsection of §2511(a) need be proved to terminate)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§2511(b) requires focus on child’s needs and bonding/impact of severance)