In the Interest of: I.L.H.L. and V.C., Minors
2086 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Mother had two children: V.C. (born July 2015) and I.L.H.L. (born Sept. 2016). Both were removed shortly after birth and placed in foster care; V.C. was in care from ~6 weeks old, I.L.H.L. from birth.
- CYS opened services in August 2015 after concerns about Mother’s mental health, unstable housing (14+ moves), transient lifestyle (including a move to Louisiana), and inconsistent contact with providers.
- Parents had minimal and inconsistent contact with the children; Mother’s last visit was February 15, 2017, and she ceased contact with CYS in March 2017.
- The children are placed together in a pre-adoptive foster home, are bonded to each other and the foster family, and the foster parents seek to adopt.
- CYS petitioned to involuntarily terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b). The trial court granted termination on June 5, 2017; Mother appealed, but did not contest the Section 2511(a) grounds on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination served the children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence that severing parental rights served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; Mother urged leniency due to her youth and circumstances | The children have been essentially in foster care their entire lives, are bonded with foster parents, have minimal bond with Mother, and need permanency now | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(b); finding minimal/insubstantial parental bond and that severance favored children’s stability and welfare |
| Whether Mother preserved challenge to statutory grounds under § 2511(a) | Impliedly contended entire termination was unjustified | CYS relied on trial record establishing grounds under § 2511(a) | Court found Mother waived challenge to § 2511(a) on appeal by failing to raise or brief it; therefore review limited to § 2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court fact-finding and credibility in termination cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis; primary consideration to child’s needs and welfare)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial court may resolve credibility and decline reversal absent abuse of discretion)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs/welfare include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (utmost attention to effect of severing parental bond)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no requirement for expert bonding evaluation; caseworkers may testify on bonds)