In the Interest of: J.M.K., a Minor
649 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- CYF removed two children from Mother in July 2014 after finding the family homeless, children with untreated skin conditions and infected bug bites, and concerns about Mother’s drug use and behavior. Children were placed with paternal kin and adjudicated dependent in August 2014.
- CYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights and to change permanency goals to adoption on August 11, 2015. Termination and goal-change hearings occurred December 2015 and March 2016.
- Trial court found over 12 months had elapsed since removal and concluded the conditions leading to removal (unstable housing, criminal activity, lack of psychological evaluation, inconsistent medical care) persisted, noting Mother had periods of improvement but then relapsed into criminal conduct and incarceration.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) and (b) and changed permanency goals to adoption; Mother appealed the termination and (partially) the goal change orders.
- Appellate court affirmed: it held (1) statutory grounds under §2511(a)(8) were met (12+ months out of care, conditions persisted, termination served children’s needs), and (2) under §2511(b) termination best served children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs by providing permanence and stability.
- Mother’s challenge to the goal-change orders was waived for failure to brief; her challenge to exclusion of evidence about the paternal grandfather’s disability was rejected as harmless because the record independently supported termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYF/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(8) grounds were established | Mother says she remedied conditions: stable housing, attends medical appointments, abstinent from drugs, good visits | Conditions persisted (unstable housing, criminal arrests/incarceration, lack of psychological evaluation, pattern of poor judgment) and 12+ months elapsed | Affirmed: §2511(a)(8) satisfied — removal >12 months, conditions continued, termination in children’s best interests |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) best‑interests standard | Mother argues strong parent–child bond; termination would harm children | Bond is limited/neutral; children are doing well in kinship care; permanence/stability favor termination | Affirmed: court reasonably found no long‑term harm and that termination serves children’s needs |
| Whether exclusion of evidence about paternal grandfather’s disability required remand | Mother contends grandfather’s agoraphobia made him an unsuitable adoptive resource and evidence should be admitted | Trial court limited such evidence as irrelevant to agency‑filed termination; even so, termination would be warranted without assessing pre‑adoptive resource | Affirmed: any error harmless — record independently supports termination; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial courts must consider pre‑adoptive placement and foster bonds when appropriate)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for §2511(a)(8))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (termination under §2511(a)(8) does not require assessing parental willingness to remedy conditions)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (section 2511(b) best‑interests analysis includes bond plus safety, stability, continuity)
- In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (agency‑initiated termination does not require a pre‑adoptive resource to be identified)