In the Interest of: E.C., a Minor
1297 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 16, 2016Background
- Children E.C. (b. 2005) and P.E.C. (b. 2008) were placed in DHS custody in September 2012 after a child-endangerment incident; father was incarcerated at that time and remained incarcerated through the termination hearing.
- Father had a lengthy criminal history, including a prior murder conviction and subsequent arrests; no definite release date existed at the time of the hearing.
- DHS developed an FSP for father (visitation and, upon release, housing, employment, substance and mental-health treatment), but the court found no evidence father satisfied FSP objectives.
- Father maintained monthly supervised prison visits; caseworker testimony characterized visits as limited (P.E.C. inattentive; E.C. showed more friendly than parental interaction).
- Children lived with pre-adoptive foster parents for ~2 years, where they formed a strong parent-child bond and received consistent daily care.
- Trial court terminated father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father was unavailable due to long-term incarceration, failed to effectuate FSP goals, and monthly prison visits were insufficient to maintain parental relationship | Father argued he made progress toward working and meeting FSP goals and contested sufficiency of evidence | Court held §2511(a)(1) satisfied — father failed/refused to perform duties; visits and efforts were insufficient |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) (continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care) was met | Repeated/incapacitating unavailability (incarceration) caused children to lack parental care and conditions were not remediable in reasonable time | Father contended his efforts and visits rebut incapacity finding | Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied — incapacity/refusal caused lack of essential care and was unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether §2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) (children removed ≥6 / ≥12 months and conditions persist) were met | Children had been in placement since 2012; conditions causing removal persisted and termination best served children's welfare | Father argued improvement/progress and contested best-interests showing | Court held §2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) satisfied — removal period and persistent conditions supported termination |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (children's developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Children had established strong bonds with foster parents, would not suffer irreparable harm, and adoption would provide permanency and stability | Father argued court failed to give proper weight to parent-child bond and his efforts | Court held §2511(b) satisfied — terminating father's rights would not cause irreparable harm and adoption was in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for appellate review and 2511 analysis)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (formulation of requirements for §2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarcerated parent must employ available resources to maintain relationship)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole history, not mechanically apply six-month rule)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent must exert sincere effort and use available resources to maintain parent-child relationship)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for §2511(a)(8) termination)