In the Interest of: I.T.W., a Minor
In the Interest of: I.T.W., a Minor No. 3340 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- Father (D.R.W.) appealed termination of his parental rights to three children and a goal change to adoption after DHS petitions; trial court entered decrees on Sept. 16, 2016; appeals consolidated.
- DHS became involved in 2013 after Mother’s drug use and living conditions; children were removed and adjudicated dependent; Father was incarcerated throughout the case (since June 2012).
- Father had essentially no contact with the children for over four years; he never met the youngest child and had not arranged visits or provided documentation of prison-classes.
- DHS developed a Family Service Plan; Father testified he completed parenting/violence- prevention classes in prison but provided no confirmatory documentation and had no release date (possible four more years).
- Children were placed in a pre-adoptive foster home, where DHS witnesses testified they were thriving and bonded with the foster parent.
- Trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); Superior Court analyzed and affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care) | Father claimed he maintained contact efforts, completed classes, was bonded to children, and DHS failed to assist or acknowledge his efforts | Father was incarcerated the entire period, had no contact with the children for years, never met the youngest, provided no documentation of class completion or visitation requests, and his incarceration made reunification speculative | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied due to Father’s prolonged incarceration, lack of involvement, and inability/unlikelihood to remedy the conditions |
| Whether termination served the children’s best interests under § 2511(b) (needs and welfare; effect of severing bond) | Father argued record lacked evidence of bond analysis and impact of severance; no expert testimony presented | DHS and caseworkers testified children had no meaningful bond with Father, would not suffer irreparable harm, and were well-adjusted and bonded to pre-adoptive foster parent | Affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied; termination would not harm children and would serve stability and welfare |
| Whether DHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts (affecting termination) | Father argued DHS did not assist in outreach, arrange visits, or consider reunification options | Trial court and DHS noted Father was incarcerated and not an available reunification resource; reasonable-efforts requirement does not bar termination under § 6351(f) in these circumstances | Rejected: claim without merit; reasonable-efforts doctrine not dispositive to termination here |
| Whether Father was denied due process/equal protection | Father asserted procedural and legal errors deprived him of constitutional rights | Father had appointed counsel, participated by phone, presented evidence and cross-examined witnesses; trial court considered family as potential resources | Rejected: no due process/equal protection violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (termination may be appropriate despite agency failures when reunification unrealistic because of incarceration)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to terminate under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be deferred while parent attempts to become capable)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are constitutionally protected; due process standards apply)