In the Interest of: H.K., a minor, Appeal of: R.L.
161 A.3d 331
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Child H.K., born July 2014, was placed with pre-adoptive foster parents two weeks after birth and had lived only with them; mother tested positive for Subutex at birth.
- R.L. (Father) was identified as alleged father shortly before dependency; he was incarcerated, did not sign paternity acknowledgement, but a DNA test in Dec. 2014 established paternity.
- From Jan. 2015–Apr. 2016 Father had no contact with CYF or the court despite receiving notice; he did not retain counsel or request visitation until after a termination petition was filed.
- Mother voluntarily consented to adoption and signed termination paperwork in April 2016; CYF filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on Mar. 29, 2016.
- The trial court held a permanency review (July 11, 2016) addressing grandparents’ custody/visitation and later terminated Father’s parental rights (Aug. 24, 2016) under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b).
- Father appealed both orders; the Superior Court dismissed his appeal of the permanency review for lack of standing and affirmed the termination order.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYF/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal permanency review order denying grandparents custody/visitation | Father challenged findings about family finding, timing of CYF’s notice of grandparents, refusal to permit visitation outside Act 101, and trauma risk to child | Father lacked a substantial, direct, immediate interest in grandparents’ custody/visitation determinations and termination later removed his parental rights | Dismissed for lack of standing: Father was not aggrieved by those findings |
| Admissibility of testimony re: CYF’s reasonable efforts (at TPR hearing) | Trial court sustained objection to questions about whether agency determined grandparents should have contact; Father says this prevented showing lack of reasonable efforts | Trial court found record already contained evidence of CYF’s efforts and credibility issues; reasonable-efforts evidence is relevant but not a prerequisite to termination | No abuse of discretion in evidentiary ruling; exclusion proper given the record |
| Whether failure of CYF family finding should bar TPR or affect best interests under §2511(b) | Father argued lack of family finding deprived child of biological kin and should factor into best-interest analysis | Court applied D.C.D.: agency’s lack of reasonable efforts can be relevant but does not bar termination; focus remains child’s needs and welfare | Termination may consider reasonable efforts but they are not dispositive; court properly weighed evidence and could proceed to TPR |
| Whether terminating Father’s rights is in child’s best interests under §2511(b) | Father argued child should have opportunity to know biological family and that termination was not in child’s welfare | CYF and court relied on psychological evaluation showing strong, exclusive bond with foster parents, child’s secure development, and trauma risk from displacement | Affirmed: terminating Father’s rights was in child’s developmental, physical and emotional best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (establishes "aggrieved person" standing standard)
- Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (discusses requirement that appellant show a substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency reasonable efforts may be relevant to TPR but are not a prerequisite to termination)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for TPR appeals; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (explains appellate deference and limits on second-guessing trial court in dependency/TPR cases)
- In re Adoption of G.R.L., 26 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. 2011) (parents have no input regarding adoptive placement after termination)