In the Interest of: K.I.T., a Minor
In the Interest of: K.I.T., a Minor No. 140 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Child (b. May 2013) was removed from parents at ~1.5 years old and adjudicated dependent in Feb. 2015; child has macrocephaly, seizure disorder, developmental delays, and an IEP.
- DHS created a Single Case Plan (SCP) for Father requiring drug/alcohol assessment, five random drug screens, suitable housing, participation in ARC (parenting/housing), and visitation.
- Father had a criminal history and periods of incarceration; he was on parole during much of the dependency case and began full-time work in May 2016.
- DHS filed a petition (June 2016) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); hearing held Dec. 6, 2016.
- Trial court found Father failed to attend child’s medical appointments and IEP meetings, lacked appropriate housing, failed to complete CEU assessment and refused some drug screens; foster mother provided primary care and pre-adoptive placement.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights (Dec. 6, 2016); Father appealed asserting errors under §§ 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); appellate court affirmed based on § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) termination was proper (parental incapacity/unremedied conditions) | Father: he obtained employment, completed parenting classes and substance treatment, visited consistently, and can now care for the child | Father repeatedly failed to attend medical/IEP appointments, lacks appropriate housing, did not obtain CEU assessment, refused some drug screens; conduct caused child to lack essential parental care and is not remedied | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) proven by clear and convincing evidence; causes not remedied |
| Whether § 2511(b) (child's needs/welfare; bond) bars termination | Father: regular supervised visits created a parental bond; termination would harm child | Child’s primary bond is with foster mother (pre-adoptive), who provides medical and educational advocacy; termination would not cause irreparable harm and serves child’s needs | Affirmed: terminating rights serves child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs |
| Whether appellate review should address goal-change order | Father appealed the goal-change order | DHS: Father failed to raise errors about the goal-change order in concise statement of errors/questions presented | Waived: issues on goal-change order not preserved for appellate review |
| Whether appointment/role of Child Advocate created reversible error | Father: did not raise conflict at trial | DHS/Child Advocate: Child Advocate (attorney) represented child’s legal interests; no conflict shown | Not addressed as reversible error; court noted L.B.M. but found no conflict asserted and child lacked capacity to express preference |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and need to weigh child’s developmental clock and bond in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangible factors—love, comfort, security—inform § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (scope of bond analysis; reasonable inference of no bond when no evidence)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity grounds can include refusal or incapacity, not only affirmative misconduct)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate courts need only agree with trial court as to one subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b) to affirm)
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues not raised in concise statement of errors are waived)