In the Interest of: K.A.L., a Minor
1 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 22, 2017Background
- DHS removed K.A.L. (the Child) in March 2013 after reports that Mother had been arrested and left the children in the care of an incapable 19‑year‑old sibling; Child was adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS.
- Mother repeatedly tested positive for benzodiazepines and THC in 2013; she was administratively discharged from drug treatment for non‑attendance and CEU recommended inpatient treatment.
- Child was reunified with Mother in May 2015 under DHS supervision but Mother relapsed in October 2015 (positive for marijuana and PCP) and missed many treatment sessions; DHS obtained custody again and Child reentered foster care.
- After continued failures to engage in drug/alcohol and mental‑health services, and unstable housing, DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption in May 2016 and filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights in August 2016.
- At the November 21, 2016 termination hearing Mother admitted she was not ready to parent; she had poor visit attendance and had not completed required treatment; Child is bonded to and consents to adoption by her foster mother.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties for six months) | Mother contended the trial court erred and abused its discretion; she sought more time to get stable | Mother repeatedly failed to engage in treatment, missed drug screens and visits, remained homeless, and admitted she was not ready to parent | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(1): record shows ongoing failure/refusal to perform parental duties and no benefit from interventions |
| Whether termination serves the Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs under § 2511(b) | Mother implied the bond/parental relationship should weigh against termination | Child is bonded to foster mother, has stability in foster care, and Mother’s conduct negatively affected the Child; adoption is Child’s preference | Court held termination under § 2511(b) is in Child’s best interests given stability and bond with foster parent |
| Whether the court erred in changing Child’s goal to adoption | Mother challenged the goal change (part of appeal) | DHS argued reunification was no longer realistic and adoption protects Child’s welfare | Court found Mother waived the issue procedurally; alternatively, goal change to adoption was proper and in Child’s best interests |
| Standard of appellate review for termination decisions | Mother argued trial court abused discretion | DHS invoked deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard and supported trial court credibility findings | Court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review, deferred to trial court’s factual and credibility findings and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court factfinding in dependency/termination appeals)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden: clear and convincing evidence for termination)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court may affirm on any § 2511(a) subsection)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry under § 2511(a)(1))
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole history; not mechanical six‑month application)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus on child under § 2511(b))
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (importance of considering emotional bonds in § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bonding evaluations not always required)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (direct observation or formal bonding evals not always necessary)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (biological ties or affection alone insufficient to defeat termination)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold awaiting parent’s improvement)