In the Interest of: H.B.M.Y., a Minor, In the Interest of: H.B.M.Y., a Minor No. 727 EDA 2017

Background

Child born June 2013; parents voluntarily placed him with paternal grandparents (Grandparents) three weeks later. Grandparents have cared for Child continuously since then.
Mother was convicted of burglary in New York and served ~4.5 years; she had little or no face-to-face contact with Child before incarceration and only limited contact during incarceration (occasional calls, holiday/birthday cards/drawings).
Grandparents obtained sole legal and physical custody in February 2014 and filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights in March 2016.
An initial TPR hearing occurred without counsel for Mother; appellate court vacated the termination and remanded for a new hearing after ordering appointment/consideration of counsel.
At the remand hearing (Jan. 20, 2017) Mother was represented; Grandparents testified Child identifies them as his parents, is well cared for, and they are willing to adopt; Mother testified to phone contact, sending cards, taking prison parenting classes, and plans for reunification after release.
The orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1) and (b); Superior Court affirmed, finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination despite two minor erroneous factual findings by the trial court (about cards and parenting classes), which were harmless.

Issues

Issue	Mother's Argument	Grandparents' Argument	Held
Whether record supports trial-court findings of fact	Trial court made erroneous factual findings not supported by record (e.g., Mother sent cards; took classes)	Trial court findings otherwise supported by testimony; Mother had minimal involvement	Court found two factual errors but deemed them harmless; overall findings supported by competent evidence
Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) was proper (failure/refusal to perform parental duties for 6+ months)	Mother argued she took affirmative steps: frequent phone calls (esp. shortly before filing), sent cards/drawings, took parenting classes, sought reunification plans	Grandparents showed Mother abandoned day-to-day care since 3 weeks old, provided no financial support, had only one visit, did not secure visitation while incarcerated or pursue available resources to ensure visits	Held: § 2511(a)(1) satisfied — Mother failed to perform parental duties and did not utilize available resources to maintain the relationship
Whether termination under § 2511(b) is in Child’s best interests	Mother argued bond and desire to reunify; plans and employment after halfway-house release weigh against termination	Grandparents argued Child is bonded to them, identifies them as parents, stable home, adoption would provide permanency	Held: § 2511(b) satisfied — Child’s developmental, emotional, physical needs best met by termination and adoption by Grandparents
Whether Mother’s incarceration alone justifies termination	Mother argued incarceration and limited contacts should not, by themselves, warrant termination	Grandparents argued incarceration does not excuse failure to use resources to maintain relationship; Mother did not take required affirmative steps	Held: Incarceration alone insufficient, but here Mother’s conduct while incarcerated (limited efforts to secure visitation/reunification) supported termination under the statutory framework

Key Cases Cited

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of appellate review and clear-and-convincing burden)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may credit or discredit evidence and resolve conflicts)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (focus on parent’s conduct in TPR proceedings)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court must consider whole case history, not mechanically apply six-month period)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties are affirmative obligations to meet child’s physical and emotional needs)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (incarceration does not automatically justify termination; responsibilities not tolled)
In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super. 2008) (incarcerated parent must use available resources to foster relationship)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (harmless error doctrine in TPR proceedings)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§ 2511(b) focuses on child’s needs and welfare)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangible factors—love, comfort, security—inform best-interest analysis)
In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parental bond is one factor among many in § 2511(b) analysis)