In the Interest of: H.L.R.B., III, a Minor
365 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Child born July 2013; DHS received reports of parental drug use, domestic violence, and Mother’s inability to care for Child; Child removed from parents and placed with maternal relatives/foster parents shortly after hospital discharge in Sept. 2013.
- Father denied paternity initially, had previous drug-related convictions and a history of domestic violence; he was incarcerated for domestic violence in 2014 and released Nov. 2014.
- Father had a Single Case Plan requiring drug/alcohol treatment, random drug screens, mental health evaluation, anger/domestic violence programs, and supervised visitation; he completed some programs but repeatedly failed to provide requested random drug screens and did not maintain continued substance treatment.
- DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (filed Feb. 18, 2015); termination hearings held June 5, Aug. 21, and Dec. 18, 2015; trial court entered decree terminating Father’s parental rights on Dec. 18, 2015.
- Trial court found Father’s repeated incapacity (substance issues, uncontrolled anger/domestic violence, poor visitation quality) satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), and that termination served the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b).
- Father appealed arguing DHS failed to meet the clear-and-convincing standard, challenging findings under §§ 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b), and asserting due process/equal protection and hearsay/notice errors; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence (§ 2511(a) generally) | DHS failed to meet the burden; Father completed many objectives and had no proven ongoing drug problem | Father repeatedly failed random drug screens, did not sustain treatment, had domestic violence/anger incidents, poor visit quality | Affirmed — record supports termination (clear and convincing evidence) |
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) is met (repeated/incapacity causing lack of essential parental care and unremedied causes) | Father claimed compliance with many objectives and denied ongoing substance use; argued lack of specific order for random screens earlier | DHS showed repeated noncompliance with random screens, incomplete treatment, history of substance-related convictions, domestic violence incidents, and visitation problems | Affirmed — § 2511(a)(2) satisfied |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interests (§ 2511(b)) — bond and welfare analysis | Father argued court over-relied on DHS witness and foster mother testimony; contended a parental bond existed and termination would harm due process rights | Evidence showed Child bonded to foster parents, Child cried and sought “mommy” (foster mother) during visits, lacked parent/child bond with Father; stability favors termination | Affirmed — termination serves child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs |
| Procedural/constitutional claims (due process, equal protection, hearsay, notice) | Father argued § 2511(b) limitation and evidentiary rulings denied meaningful hearing and constitutional protections | Trial court followed law; some claims were waived or inapplicable because termination was grounded on § 2511(a)(2) not the (a)(1)/(6)/(8) subsections | Rejected/waived — constitutional challenge not entitled to relief; hearsay/notice claims waived or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated Section 2511 analysis: conduct first, then best interests)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussion of bond analysis under § 2511(b) and factors courts may consider)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence and stability outweighs indefinite delay for parental improvement)
- In re Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (rejection of constitutional challenge to § 2511(b) limitation on considering remedial efforts initiated after notice)