In the Interest of: K.C.H., a Minor
In the Interest of: K.C.H., a Minor No. 3796 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Child (born Sept. 2013) was placed in kinship care after reports Mother abandoned him and had untreated mental health issues, drug use, and violent incidents; DHS obtained protective custody in Oct. 2015 and Child was adjudicated dependent.
- The court previously found “aggravated circumstances” relating to Mother based on prior involuntary termination and abuse of another child; Mother’s visitation as to other children was suspended.
- Mother was referred to services (mental health treatment, substance testing, parenting, anger management, ARC) but the court found participation inconsistent: missed over half of supervised visits, positive drug tests, incomplete programming.
- Child exhibited trauma-related symptoms and was receiving trauma-focused therapy; kinship caregiver had bonded with Child and provided behavioral management and stability.
- DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); the trial court granted termination on Dec. 1, 2016.
- On appeal Mother challenged termination under multiple §2511(a) subsections and (b); the Superior Court affirmed, focusing on (a)(1) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DHS/Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was proper (failure to perform parental duties) | Mother argued she substantially met FSP goals, completed classes, continued mental-health treatment, and maintained visits demonstrating capacity to parent | DHS and trial court pointed to inconsistent treatment, missed >50% of visits, positive drug tests, history of violence and prior aggravated-circumstances finding; child safety risk | Held: §2511(a)(1) satisfied — Mother failed to perform parental duties over the relevant period; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination met §2511(b) best-interest test | Mother argued a bond existed and termination would harm Child | DHS showed Child’s trauma needs, stable placement with kin caregiver, caregiver bonded with Child and managed behaviors; termination would not cause irreparable harm | Held: §2511(b) satisfied — terminating rights served Child’s developmental, emotional, and welfare needs |
| Whether Mother’s post-petition efforts preclude termination under §2511(a)(1) | Mother relied on recent participation in services and improved behavior | Court noted statute precludes considering remedial efforts initiated after notice of petition and found prior six-month conduct controlling | Held: Post-petition or belated efforts insufficient to defeat §2511(a)(1) finding |
| Whether child’s bond required preserving parental rights | Mother argued ongoing visitation showed meaningful bond | Court found visitation sporadic and Child was bonded to caregiver; severance would not cause irreparable emotional harm | Held: No protective parental bond; termination permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court factfinding and abuse-of-discretion standard in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis and focus on child’s needs)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining the §2511 bifurcated process)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for proving §2511(a)(1))
- In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (parental duty as affirmative obligation tied to child’s needs)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under §2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)