In the Interest of: J.J.P., a Minor
563 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Mother (S.H.) has three children—J.J.H. (b. 2011), A.M.P. (b. 2013), and J.J.P. (b. 2015)—who were placed in DHS custody after reports of chronic substance abuse, domestic violence, inadequate supervision, and repeated positive drug tests by Mother.
- DHS and the Bethanna CUA provided in‑home services, safety plans, drug treatment referrals, and supervised visitation beginning in 2014–2015; the children were ultimately removed and placed in foster care or relatives’ homes.
- Mother had repeated relapses (positive screens for multiple substances), attendance/behavior problems in treatment and court‑ordered programs, intermittent incarcerations, and instances of erratic/unsafe conduct during visits and court events.
- DHS filed involuntary termination petitions on November 2, 2016; evidentiary hearing was held February 6, 2017. Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) and changed the children’s permanency goal to adoption.
- Mother appealed, arguing she made substantial progress on her Family Service Plan (parenting classes, treatment, housing, visitation) and that termination was not in the children’s best interests.
- The Superior Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings and concluding DHS proved grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination served the children’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was supported (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Mother argued she completed parenting classes, attended treatment, and visited when permitted, so she did not refuse or fail to perform parental duties | Mother had long history of substance use, noncompliance with plans, erratic behavior, suspended visits, and multiple incarcerations demonstrating failure to perform duties | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1) (clear and convincing evidence of failure to perform duties) |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) termination was supported (incapacity/neglect not remediable) | Mother argued she remedied conditions (housing, treatment participation) and now can care for children | Repeated and continued incapacity (addiction, instability, incarcerations, unsafe conduct) left children without essential care; conditions not likely remedied timely | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2) (conditions not remedied) |
| Whether termination comported with §2511(b) (children’s best interests) | Mother claimed strong bond with children and visitation history; termination would harm children | Children bonded with each other and foster family; trial court emphasized safety, stability, and lack of a beneficial parent‑child bond with Mother given neglect and safety concerns | Court held termination was in children’s developmental, physical and emotional best interests under §2511(b) |
| Whether DHS/agency failed to set reasonable goals or make reasonable efforts (argued as basis to defeat termination) | Mother argued she was not given realistic goals to obtain unsupervised visitation and reunification | Agency’s reasonable‑efforts argument is not a defense to statutory grounds for termination; court focused on §2511 factors and Mother’s noncompliance | Court rejected this as a barrier to termination, citing precedent that reasonable‑efforts claim does not avoid §2511 analysis; affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (articulates standard for review of termination orders and discusses how incarceration and parental incapacity factor into §2511 analysis)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts must defer to trial court fact‑finding and credibility in dependency/termination cases)
- In the Interest of D.C.D., a Minor, 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable‑efforts argument does not negate statutory §2511 termination analysis)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. Super. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for §2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect of termination under §2511(b))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluations are not always required; safety and permanency can outweigh existing bonds)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone does not preclude termination; court must consider psychological and safety impacts)