In the Interest of: J.N.D., a Minor
In the Interest of: J.N.D., a Minor No. 199 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 4, 2017Background
- Children J.N.D. (b. 2013) and J.M.D. (b. 2015) were placed in foster care after Mother was observed intoxicated in May 2015; Mother tested positive for multiple controlled substances on numerous occasions.
- Children were adjudicated dependent on May 29, 2015; DHS established a Single Case Plan with reunification goals (substance abuse treatment, parenting, mental health, supervised visits).
- Mother repeatedly failed drug tests, did not complete SCP objectives, and was later incarcerated after pleading guilty to Endangering the Welfare of Children; she was in custody at the December 1, 2016 termination hearing.
- CUA/DHS witnesses testified children had lived mostly in foster care, were in a pre‑adoptive placement, had strong bonds with foster parents, and would not suffer irreparable harm from termination.
- Trial court granted DHS petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and changed permanency goals to adoption; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/refusal) | Mother asserted she maintained visitation, participated in court‑ordered screens/treatment, had stable housing and income, and could remedy conditions that led to removal | Mother had repeated positive drug tests, failed SCP objectives, demonstrated unwillingness/cooperation failures, and was incarcerated such that she could not remedy conditions | Affirmed: trial court found clear and convincing evidence under § 2511(a)(2) (and other subsections); incarceration and unremedied substance abuse supported termination |
| Whether termination and goal change were contrary to the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs (§ 2511(b) and Juvenile Act goal change) | Mother argued severing the parent–child relationship would harm children and challenged admissibility/weight of caseworker bond testimony | DHS caseworkers testified children were thriving in pre‑adoptive placement, had bonds with foster parents, and would not suffer irreparable harm; court may rely on caseworker observations without expert bonding evaluation | Affirmed: court found no strong maternal bond and that termination and goal change to adoption served children’s best interests; Mother’s goal‑change claim was also waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate review deference to trial court fact/credibility findings in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be determinative under § 2511(a)(2) when it prevents remedying incapacity)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§ 2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; bond analysis guidance)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (safety and stability may outweigh existence of some parental bond)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (biological connection or child’s positive emotions alone do not establish a beneficial bond)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (social workers/caseworkers may provide evaluations of parent–child bonding; § 2511(b) does not require formal bonding evaluation)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to prove § 2511(a)(2): repeated/continued incapacity/neglect/refusal; child without essential care; causes cannot/will not be remedied)