In the Interest of I.E.P.
87 A.3d 340
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- DHS filed petitions in March 2011 seeking involuntary termination of Father and Mother under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) for three Children.
- A four-date termination hearing occurred (April 23–25, 2012; June 5, 2012; October 17, 2012) with DHS and parents’ witnesses and testimony from kinship foster care provider.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Judge Nocella; case reassigned to Judge Allan L. Tereshko; March 19, 2013 hearing to determine if record was sufficient to decide on transcripts.
- Judge Tereshko closed the evidentiary record and used transcripts and briefs to render final Orders on July 12, 2013, finding grounds under § 2511(a)(8) and (b).
- Father appealed on issues about credibility and use of transcripts, arguing the court should have observed witnesses and that termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- Appellate review applied abuse of discretion, deferring to trial court findings supported by the record and not reversing for mere disagreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of transcripts over live witnesses | Father argues credibility required live observation. | State argues record was fact-driven; live observation unnecessary. | No reversible error; transcript-based decision upheld. |
| Sufficiency under 2511(a)(8) and (b) | Father contends no clear and convincing evidence of 2511(a)(8) and insufficient 2511(b) bond analysis. | DHS contends evidence supports removal and best interests under both subsections. | Evidence supported termination under 2511(a)(8) and best interests under 2511(b). |
| Bond/needs-and-welfare analysis sequence | Father asserts misapplication of needs analysis and bond evaluation. | Court properly evaluated needs and welfare under 2511(a)(8) before 2511(b). | Proper bifurcated analysis applied; 2511(a)(8) antecedent to 2511(b). |
| Expert testimony on parent-child bond | Father requests expert bonding testimony to prove lack of bond. | Bond analysis permitted via DHS witnesses; no mandatory expert needed. | Court properly relied on non-expert testimony; no error in bond finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 616 Pa. 309 (Pa. 2012) (affirms standard and procedural posture for termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (conduct/needs analysis under §2511)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing standard for grounds)
- In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9 (Pa. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in termination cases)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (2511(a)(8) sequencing and needs analysis)
- In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (remedial period for §2511(a)(8) considerations)