In the Interest of: J.M.D., a Minor
In the Interest of: J.M.D., a Minor No. 2692 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Child J.M.D. (b. 2006) entered DHS care after substantiated reports (2013) alleging physical and environmental neglect and parental substance abuse; she has been in placement since 2014.
- DHS filed a petition (July 8, 2016) to involuntarily terminate parental rights of Father (T.D.) and change Child’s permanency goal to adoption; evidentiary hearing held July 25, 2016.
- Agency witnesses (DHS and CUA caseworkers) testified Father never made in-person contact with them, failed to comply with Family Service Plan objectives (including producing a court-ordered mental health report), and had minimal contact with Child (telephone calls about every two months).
- Foster mother M.A. is the pre-adoptive caregiver; testimony described a strong bond between Child and foster mother and that Child’s needs are being met.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father lacks parental capacity under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), that the incapacity will not be remedied, and that termination is in the Child’s best interests under § 2511(b).
- Superior Court affirmed (Apr. 4, 2017), rejecting Father’s sufficiency challenges and deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Agency Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was proper under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/neglect) | Father argued evidence was insufficient; failure to provide a mental health report and sparse phone contact do not establish a settled purpose to relinquish or incapacity | Agency relied on repeated and continued noncompliance with FSP, lack of contact with Child and workers, and inability to remedy conditions | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of parental incapacity that cannot be remedied; termination authorized under § 2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) | Father did not meaningfully contest § 2511(b) on appeal (waived) | Agency: primary consideration is Child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs; Child bonded to foster parent; no parental bond with Father; no irreparable harm from termination | Affirmed: court found termination in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b); severing Father’s rights would not cause irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for termination and appellate review)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (parent–child bond analysis and consideration of child's emotional needs)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (biological connection and child affection are not dispositive of beneficial bond)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court may emphasize safety and need for permanency over attenuated parental bond)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bonding evaluations not required; social workers’ testimony can support bond findings)