In the Interest of: E.M.Z., a Minor
1986 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 23, 2017Background
- Mother had a long history of substance abuse and six older children previously placed with DHS; she tested positive for multiple controlled substances at births and during casework.
- E.M.Z. (b. May 2013) initially remained with Mother under DHS supervision but evidence showed lack of prenatal care, positive drug screens, missed assessments, and failure to meet child’s medical and developmental needs.
- M.M.Z. (b. Nov 2014) was born drug-exposed and was removed at birth; both children were placed with a pre-adoptive family after protective custody orders.
- Mother repeatedly failed to complete outpatient and inpatient drug treatment programs from 2014–2016 and could not document current treatment; agency witnesses observed her appearing under the influence while caring for E.M.Z.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights (May 2016); after a hearing the family court terminated rights to both children under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b) (plus additional subsections as to E.M.Z.) and changed the permanency goal to adoption. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) | Mother claimed she had taken steps toward reunification and worked on case plan objectives; termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother’s repeated drug use, positive tests, failure to complete treatment, and inability to provide essential care show continued incapacity and unremedied conditions | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): evidence showed repeated neglect/incapacity causing lack of essential care and inability/unwillingness to remedy |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Mother argued there was no evidence that the mother–child bond was broken | DHS showed children bonded to pre-adoptive parents, lacked a meaningful bond with Mother, and would benefit from permanency | Court held termination served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; no irreparable harm from severance |
| Whether termination alternatively satisfied other § 2511(a) subsections (e.g., (1), (5), (8)) | Mother contested sufficiency of evidence for statutory subsections relied upon | DHS relied primarily on (a)(2) but also presented evidence supporting other grounds for E.M.Z. | Court affirmed termination based on (a)(2) and (b); agreement with any single valid (a) ground plus (b) suffices |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was error | Mother argued siblings’ reunification with relatives showed goal should remain reunification | DHS argued goal change followed from termination findings and best-interests analysis | Court found goal change proper and largely moot after termination; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (three-part test for § 2511(a)(2))
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (best-interests factors include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold awaiting parental rehabilitation)
- In re S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (agency may seek termination without prior goal change; overlapping evidence)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental drug issues can justify termination when they prevent proper care)