In the Interest of: D.M.W., a Minor
In the Interest of: D.M.W., a Minor No. 2097 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Two children (D.J.W., born 2012; D.M.W., born 2003) were placed in Agency custody after emergency protective custody orders in Nov. 2014 and adjudicated dependent in April 2015. Both remained in out-of-home placement for ~19–24 months.
- CYS filed petitions (Feb. 2016) to involuntarily terminate parental rights and to change permanency goals to adoption for both children. Evidentiary hearings occurred across multiple dates in 2016; dependency records and multiple family service plans were admitted.
- Father T.M. was incarcerated from Jan. 2014 to May 2016 and subject to a no-contact order; the other father (D.M.W.’s father) was generally absent and unlocatable. Mother maintained employment and housing intermittently but had rent disputes, relied on public transit, and had relationships with men with sex-offender backgrounds while children were in care.
- Caseworkers and service providers documented that Mother attended visits but engaged minimally, often came unprepared, failed to progress to unsupervised visits, missed appointments, and had limited phone contact; children formed stronger bonds with kinship/foster families; one child (D.M.W.) testified he did not wish to return to Mother.
- The trial court found clear and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) and (b) to terminate Mother’s parental rights to both children and T.M.’s rights to D.J.W., and changed both children’s permanency goals to adoption. Mother and T.M. appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental rights should be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties) | Mother: circumstances that caused dependency were alleviated; she is ready and able to parent. T.M.: incarceration and no-contact order prevented performance of duties. | Agency/Trial Ct: both parents failed to perform affirmative parental duties for the relevant period; minimal contact, poor engagement at visits, failure to complete required services. | Affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1); clear and convincing evidence of failure to perform duties. |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs/welfare) | Parents argued bond and parental interest should weigh against termination. | Agency/Trial Ct: children have stronger, healthier bonds with kinship/foster families; termination will provide stability and serve best interests. | Affirmed: court found no detriment to children and that termination served their needs and welfare under §2511(b). |
| Impact of incarceration/no-contact on T.M.’s claim | T.M.: incarceration made performance impossible; he used available resources and was willing to complete services once released. | Agency/Trial Ct: incarceration does not automatically excuse lack of parental effort; T.M. failed to inquire about the child’s well-being or utilize available means to maintain a relationship. | Affirmed: incarceration did not preclude finding failure to perform duties where parent did not use available resources to maintain relationship. |
| Whether permanency goal change to adoption was proper under the Juvenile Act (42 Pa.C.S. §6351) | Mother: (partially waived on appeal) argued circumstances alleviated; T.M.: Agency failed to finalize reunification efforts; change premature. | Agency/Trial Ct: placement remains necessary; parents failed to meet family service plan goals and have not alleviated conditions; adoption is appropriate and feasible. | Affirmed goal change to adoption: court found continued necessity of placement, poor compliance/progress, and best interests favor adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of appellate review—defer to trial court factfinding in dependency/termination matters)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration does not automatically excuse parental responsibilities; must assess use of available resources)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements and inquiry for §2511(a)(1) termination)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (requirements for meaningful post-abandonment contact)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties defined by child’s needs; affirmative performance required)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus of §2511(b) is the child; appellate review of termination)
- In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (analysis of child’s needs and emotional bonds in §2511(b) inquiry)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone insufficient to defeat termination where neglect/abuse and failure to remedy exist)
- McCray v. State, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (early recognition that incarceration complicates but does not automatically excuse parental duties)