In the Interest of: J.R.S., a Minor
In the Interest of: J.R.S., a Minor No. 994 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- DHS received reports in June–July 2014 that Mother left her children unsupervised, had inadequate food and unstable housing; children were adjudicated dependent and placed with foster parents in August–September 2014.
- Mother had multiple Single Case Plan (SCP) objectives (drug/alcohol treatment, CEU assessment, random drug screens, therapy, housing, employment, visitation) and failed to complete them; drug positives were documented.
- Children were in foster care ~17 months; DHS filed petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights and change permanency goal to adoption on February 6, 2016.
- At the February 25, 2016 termination hearing Mother was not present; DHS’s process consisted of leaving the petition at a door of an address produced by a Parent Locator Service (PLS) and leaving a note; counsel objected that service did not comply with the Adoption Act and Orphans’ Court Rules.
- The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a) and (b) and concluded DHS made reasonable reunification efforts; Superior Court vacated the decrees and remanded for a new termination hearing because notice/service to Mother was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother was properly served with notice of the termination petitions | Service was inadequate; leaving papers at a door does not satisfy statutory/Orphans’ Court Rule requirements and denied due process | Agency asserted it made reasonable attempts and relied on PLS address and leaving a notice at the residence | Service was improper under §2513 and Pa. O.C. Rules; vacated and remanded for new hearing |
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a) | (Raised on appeal generally) Trial court erred in finding statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence | DHS maintained it met burden based on Mother’s prolonged noncompliance and substance abuse | Superior Court did not reach merits because defective service required remand (so merits not resolved on appeal) |
| Whether termination met best-interests standard under §2511(b) | Termination would harm children due to existing bond; Mother argued due process errors impacted outcome | DHS argued children’s needs were met in foster placement and adoption was in best interest | Superior Court did not decide §2511(b) on appeal because case remanded for new hearing due to notice defect |
| Whether Mother waived notice/due-process claim by failing to include it in pro se Rule 1925(b) statement | Mother contended counsel breakdown and the claim should be considered; appellate counsel later appointed did not amend concise statement | DHS argued waiver for failure to raise claim in 1925(b) | Court declined to find waiver given hybrid-representation anomaly and considered the notice claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (termination of parental rights implicates fundamental liberty interest and requires due process)
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (reminder that service must comply with Orphans’ Court Rules and Adoption Act)
- In the Interest of K.B., 763 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 2000) (agency bears burden to prove proper service by affirmative act)
- In re Adoption of K.G.M., 845 A.2d 861 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agency must make good-faith efforts to provide notice at correct address)
- Leight v. Lefkowitz, 615 A.2d 751 (Pa. Super. 1992) (agency bears burden to prove proper service)
- In the Interest of A.P., 692 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1997) (parental rights termination requires due process protections)