In the Interest of: K.A.T., a Minor
1302 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Child (born Jan 2015) was born at 26 weeks and medically needy; placed in DHS custody on April 23, 2015 and has been in care ~23 months at time of trial.
- Parents (A.T. – Father; E.B. – Mother) struggled with substance abuse and mental health issues; both lived together in unstable housing and faced eviction; neither completed required services or consistently complied with random drug screens or court-ordered objectives.
- Mother tested positive for multiple controlled substances around childbirth; Father has a criminal history (statutory sexual assault/ corrupting a minor) and tested positive for benzodiazepines/amphetamines on drug screens.
- Parents missed visits and child medical appointments; child placed in kinship foster care where he was thriving and receiving ongoing therapies; CUA and CASA testified termination and adoption would not cause irreparable harm to the child.
- Child Advocate filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) and to change permanency goal to adoption (42 Pa.C.S. §6351); trial court granted termination and goal change on March 20, 2017.
- Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief and sought leave to withdraw; this Court conducted an independent review, affirmed the termination and goal change, and granted counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/continued neglect) | DHS: Parents’ repeated incapacity, noncompliance with SCPs, ongoing substance abuse/mental health problems left child without essential care and were unlikely to be remedied | Parents: Challenged sufficiency; argued partial/moderate compliance and goal was reunification | Held: Affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) due to sustained incapacity and minimal compliance |
| Whether termination meets §2511(b) (child’s needs/welfare; bond analysis) | DHS: Primary consideration is child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs; child has no healthy bond with parents and would suffer no irreparable harm; kinship placement stable | Parents: Argued termination would sever parent–child bond and goal was reunification | Held: Affirmed. Record supported finding no beneficial parental bond and that termination served child’s best interests |
| Whether change of permanency goal to adoption was proper (42 Pa.C.S. §6351) | DHS: Parents failed to make sufficient progress on service plan; child needs permanency; adoption is appropriate and feasible | Parents: Contested goal change as premature / inconsistent with partial compliance | Held: Affirmed. Trial court reasonably considered statutory factors and found goal change to adoption in child’s best interest |
| Whether counsel for Mother properly moved to withdraw under Anders and whether appeal is frivolous | Mother’s counsel: After review, concluded appeal frivolous and filed Anders brief complying with Santiago requirements; informed Mother of rights | Mother (through counsel): No nonfrivolous issues; Father’s counsel did not file Anders | Held: Granted counsel leave to withdraw after independent review found no meritorious appellate issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental incapacity and standards for termination under §2511)
- In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity as ground for termination; need for diligent efforts toward assumption of parental duties)