In the Interest of: J.C., a Minor
In the Interest of: J.C., a Minor No. 654 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Child J.C. born April 2016; both he and Mother tested positive for PCP at birth; Child was placed with maternal grandmother and DHS obtained custody days after birth.
- Mother has significant history: prior involuntary termination of parental rights to two older children (Nov. 30, 2015), substance abuse (repeated positive PCP screens), bipolar disorder, unstable housing, and criminal convictions/incarcerations during the case.
- DHS set Family Service Plan objectives: sobriety (negative drug screens), completion of drug/mental-health treatment, stable housing, and supervised visitation conditioned on negative screens.
- Mother produced intermittent negative screens (Sept. 2016) and briefly visited, but repeatedly tested positive thereafter and had multiple incarcerations; she did not complete recommended programs.
- Trial court held a goal-change/TPR hearing Jan. 18, 2017 and granted DHS’s petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5) and found termination served the child’s best interests under § 2511(b); Superior Court affirmed on July 31, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds to terminate under §2511(a)(1),(2),(5) | Mother repeatedly failed to remedy conditions (continued PCP use, no program completion, unstable housing); conduct persisted for relevant period | Mother had begun working on objectives (housing, mental-health, drug treatment), had negative screens after release, and visited Child — trial court discounted her efforts | Court found clear and convincing evidence for termination under §2511(a)(1),(2),(5); affirmed |
| Whether termination was in Child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond analysis) | Child is bonded to maternal grandmother; stable placement with grandmother and siblings; termination would not cause irreparable harm and adoption is in Child’s best interests | Mother argued limited contact and incarceration reduced opportunity to bond and more time/contact would develop the bond | Court credited caseworker that Child’s primary bond is with grandmother, not Mother, and held termination served Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs; affirmed |
| Whether permanency goal change to adoption was proper | Adoption is appropriate given terminated parental rights, Child’s stable kinship placement, and sibling placements with same caretaker | Mother did not brief this issue on appeal (waived); argued belated bonding efforts might justify continued reunification | Waived on appeal; court noted goal change follows from proper termination under §2511(a) and (b) and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (satisfaction of any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b) suffices for termination)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (deference to trial court credibility findings in dependency/termination matters)
- In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court need only agree with any one §2511(a) ground to affirm)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (needs-and-welfare analysis focuses on parent–child emotional bond)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (procedure for §2511(b) best-interest inquiry)
- In re Adoption of C.J.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards for reviewing termination orders)