In the Interest of: F.E v. a Minor
900 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- CYS removed two infants (born 2015 and 2016) from Mother for concerns about untreated mental-health issues, substance use, unstable housing, and failure to provide medical care; both children were placed with Maternal Aunt and adjudicated dependent.
- Mother had frequent residential instability (about ten residences), inconsistent employment, and two involuntary psychiatric commitments during CYS involvement.
- Mother attended only 15 of 69 available supervised visits, never progressed to unsupervised visits, failed to attend children’s medical appointments, and was inconsistent with prescribed psychiatric medication.
- CYS filed petitions (Dec. 2016) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Father voluntarily consented to termination.
- At the termination hearing CYS presented a bonding expert (Dr. Shinevold), the caseworker, and the resource parent; Mother presented no evidence. The trial court terminated Mother’s rights; Mother appealed and the Superior Court consolidated and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(1) was improper | Mother argued she had consistent, appropriate visitation, phone contact with resource parent, and recent compliance within six months of petition. | CYS relied on long history of incapacity, missed visits, instability, untreated mental health and risks to children. | Court affirmed termination (no relief); agreed §2511(a)(2) was satisfied and that sufficed to support termination. |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was improper | Mother emphasized visitation quality, completion of a parenting program, contact with resource parent, and recent mental-health treatment. | CYS pointed to repeated/continued incapacity (housing instability, noncompliance with treatment/meds, missed visits) causing lack of essential parental care that would not be remedied. | Held: §2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear and convincing evidence; Mother’s failures showed incapacity/neglect not likely to be remedied. |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(5) was improper | Mother claimed she had a lease, was attending mental-health treatment and taking medication, and there was no expert saying severance was in children’s best interests. | CYS stressed Mother’s inconsistent compliance, prior commitments, and inability to meet children’s needs—particularly for the child with special medical needs. | Held: Court rejected Mother’s claim; because §2511(a)(2) was proven, termination was proper. |
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(8) was improper | Mother argued recent compliance and housing evidence undermined §2511(a)(8) grounds. | CYS maintained statutory grounds based on continuing incapacity and failure to remedy conditions. | Held: Court rejected Mother’s claim; best-interest analysis under §2511(b) also favored termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of §2511(b) needs-and-welfare inquiry)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity may include refusal and failure to assume responsibilities)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (consideration of emotional bonds in best-interests analysis)