In The Interest of: J.V.S., a Minor
In The Interest of: J.V.S., a Minor No. 146 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Mother (J.K.G.) appealed decrees terminating her parental rights to six children after DHS removed them in 2014 for neglect and unsafe, unsanitary housing conditions.
- DHS investigations revealed long-standing problems dating to 2006 (home birth without hospital exam, children left unattended) and a 2009 child death from carbon monoxide; 2014 home visit found filth, infestations, lack of immunizations, and children unsupervised.
- Children were placed in foster care in October 2014; permanency plans sought reunification but required parents to clean the home, attend services, obtain mental-health treatment, suitable housing, and complete a parenting-capacity evaluation (PCE).
- Over two years in care, Mother intermittently complied (some parenting classes, employment, attempted housing) but failed to consistently obtain mental-health treatment, address children’s medical needs (missed/cancelled appointments, refused consents), and fully remedy chronic neglect and supervision deficits.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b), relying on the PCE and evidence that conditions causing neglect would not be remedied; court changed permanency goals to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence where Mother completed substantial FSP/SCP goals | Mother: she substantially complied (employment, improved housing, parenting classes) so termination was unsupported | DHS: longstanding, repeated neglect and incapacity persisted; conditions (medical neglect, unsafe housing, supervision failures, interference with care) not remedied | Held: termination affirmed under §2511(a)(2); record shows repeated/continued neglect and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions |
| Whether the PCE was unreliable and insufficient to support termination | Mother: evaluator didn’t observe her with children; report lacked merit | DHS: PCE (Dr. Williams) credible; detailed findings of refusal to accept responsibility and incapacity to parent | Held: trial court credited PCE; appellate court declined to reweigh credibility and accepted evaluation as supporting termination |
| Whether termination would harm children's developmental, physical, emotional needs (§2511(b)) given asserted parent-child bond | Mother: strong bond from consistent visits; court didn’t hear older children’s wishes; should preclude termination | DHS/GAL: bond alone doesn’t preclude termination; foster parents meet children’s needs and provide stability | Held: termination affirmed under §2511(b); court weighed bond but found children’s safety, special medical/educational needs, and stability favored adoption |
| Whether separate counsel for children was required per In re L.B.M. | Mother: trial should have appointed separate counsel for children | DHS/GAL: no conflict between GAL’s role and children’s interests; no request or showing of conflict | Held: no separate counsel required here; appellate court applied L.B.M. principles and found issue waived/unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility in TPR cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (failure to raise issue in Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of L.B.M., 156 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2017) (discussion on appointment of counsel for children in TPR proceedings)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (bond analysis is one factor; safety and stability also critical under §2511(b))
- In the Matter of the Adoption of A.M.B., 812 A.2d 659 (Pa. Super. 2002) (child’s needs should not be delayed awaiting parental remediation)