In the Interest of: I.J.W., a Minor
1896 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Child I.J.W., born Dec. 2014, tested positive for methadone at birth and was placed in DHS custody; child has lived continuously with a pre‑adoptive foster parent since placement.
- Mother (M.W.) has six children, none in her care; parental rights to two other children were previously involuntarily terminated and she is an indicated perpetrator of child abuse for a separate incident.
- DHS set reunification as the permanency goal and required Mother to complete drug/alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, parenting, stable housing, and employment under a Single Case Plan.
- DHS filed for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); a hearing was held June 3, 2016; testimony included a parenting capacity evaluation by Dr. William Russell and social worker accounts from CUA and Family School staff.
- Trial court found Mother failed to complete drug/alcohol treatment (positive screens in 2015), lacked appropriate housing (living in a shelter and not seeking independent housing), and Dr. Russell concluded she lacked capacity to parent; trial court terminated parental rights by decree of June 3, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2511(a)(2): repeated/continued incapacity causing child to lack essential parental care | Mother: she completed SCP goals (parenting, mental health, drug treatment, family school), attends family school visits and obtained a parenting capacity evaluation; has present capacity to parent | DHS/Trial Ct.: Mother has 20‑year substance history, positive drug screens in 2015, not successfully discharged from methadone program, lacks stable housing, and Dr. Russell found she lacks capacity | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2): Mother’s long‑standing substance issues, failure to remediate, and housing failures meet the statutory elements |
| 2511(b): child’s needs and welfare / parent‑child bond | Mother: testimony showed a strong bond with child; termination would harm child emotionally | DHS/Trial Ct.: Although a bond exists, child is well‑bonded with pre‑adoptive foster parent; child’s stability, safety, and permanence favor termination given Mother’s inability to provide housing/safety | Court affirmed under §2511(b): bond does not outweigh child’s need for stability and permanency; termination serves child’s best interests |
| Procedural scope / other §2511(a) subsections (1),(5),(8) | Mother challenged termination under these subsections as well | Trial court and DHS focused on §2511(a)(2) and (b); court noted it need only agree with one (a) subsection plus (b) | Court declined to reach other subsections because §2511(a)(2) and (b) supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards for appellate review and consideration of child’s need for timely permanency)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis and burden of proof)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (three‑element framework for §2511(a)(2))
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emotional bond is only one factor in §2511(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court need only agree with one §2511(a) ground plus §2511(b) to affirm)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may balance parent bond against foster placement and child’s need for stability)