In the Interest of: D.A.B., Jr., a Minor
In the Interest of: D.A.B., Jr., a Minor No. 99 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- Child A.D.B., Jr. (b. Apr. 2013) was placed in foster care and has lived with a paternal cousin for ~42 months; DHS sought involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights and a permanency goal change to adoption.
- DHS filed termination and goal-change petitions on Oct. 26, 2016; evidentiary hearing held Dec. 21, 2016; trial court entered decree terminating Father's rights and changing goal to adoption on Dec. 21, 2016.
- Evidence included testimony from psychologist Dr. Erica Williams (agreed expert) and CUA caseworker Ta’Neesha Coker; Father testified on his own behalf.
- DHS relied on Father’s ongoing mental-health issues (schizophrenia, PTSD), discontinuation of treatment/medication, substance use admissions, noncompliance with case-plan objectives, aggression toward staff, and bans from visitation sites.
- Father completed some programs long ago and attended some visits, but was found to have decreasing compliance, lacked stable housing and employment, and had not demonstrated he could remediate barriers to parenting.
- Trial court found grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and that termination served the child’s needs under § 2511(b); Father appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father refused/failed to perform parental duties under § 2511(a)(1) | Father’s conduct over the relevant six months showed refusal to perform duties: noncompliance with treatment, aggression, banned from visits | Father denied settled relinquishment; blamed court restrictions; cited prior program completion and appropriate behavior with child during visits | Court: § 2511(a)(1) proven by clear and convincing evidence; Father’s conduct and declining compliance show refusal to perform duties |
| Whether Father’s incapacity cannot be remedied under § 2511(a)(2) | Repeated incapacity (mental-health, substance use, nonengagement) left child without essential parental care and causes are unlikely to be remedied | Father pointed to program completion and positive visit behavior; expert had not observed parent–child interaction | Court: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied — incapacity and refusal caused lack of essential care and likely will not be remedied given declining compliance |
| Whether termination would harm child under § 2511(b) (bond analysis) | Child’s primary attachment is to cousin caregiver; Father’s aggression and loss of visitation made any parental bond attenuated; termination serves child’s stability | Father argued he has bond with child, participates in visits, and child recognizes him; severance would harm child | Court: § 2511(b) satisfied — no beneficial bond such that termination would cause irreparable harm; child’s needs for permanency and safety prevail |
| Whether appellate review should remand for appointment of separate counsel for child | (DHS) Child’s advocate (attorney) represented child’s interests; no conflict shown | Father did not argue conflict at trial; no claim that child advocate failed to represent child’s interests | Court: No remand required — appointment issue not raised below and record shows child’s interests were adequately represented |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (defer to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination appeals)
- In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for appellate review in termination cases)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of § 2511(a))
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): explanation, post-abandonment contact, effect under § 2511(b))
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need to consider whole history; not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (§ 2511(a)(2) can be based on refusal or incapacity)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under § 2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs and welfare)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (consider child–parent emotional bonds in § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone does not preclude termination)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluations not always required; safety and permanency may outweigh existing bond)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s right to permanency can trump parental rights when duties unmet)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (social workers/caseworkers may evaluate bonding; parent’s love alone insufficient to prevent termination)
- In re Adoption of L.B.M., 156 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2017) (appointment of counsel for child in some termination cases; structural-error discussion)