In the Interest of: K.R.L., Jr., a Minor
867 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Child (born 2012) was taken into DHS protective custody Aug 8, 2014 after Mother sent a photo of the Child with a plastic trash bag around his head; Mother’s older children had been removed earlier after she was found to have physically abused a sibling.
- Child was adjudicated dependent Aug 19, 2014 and placed in foster care; he has developmental delays, PTSD-like symptoms, and behavioral problems requiring therapy and specialized services.
- Mother was assigned permanency objectives including mental-health treatment, parenting classes, a court-ordered Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE), and stable housing; she had a documented history of mental-health issues and substance exposure in a later-born child.
- A June 8, 2015 PCE by Dr. Erica Williams diagnosed Mother with an unspecified schizophrenia-spectrum/psychotic disorder, found poor insight/judgment, and concluded she lacked the ability to provide for Child’s safety and permanency.
- Mother attended only two caretaker sessions for Child’s trauma treatment, denied responsibility for the abuse/trauma, failed to authorize required treatments, and had no contact with Child while in foster care; the pre-adoptive foster mother provided stable, trauma-informed care and Child improved markedly in her home.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights and change goal to adoption (filed Sept 19, 2016); after hearings, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) on Feb 13, 2017; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was supported (failure/refusal to perform parental duties or settled purpose to relinquish) | Mother argued there was little evidence she intended to relinquish parental rights | DHS argued Mother repeatedly failed to perform parental duties (denied responsibility, missed services, failed to authorize treatment, no contact) | Court: Affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1) — Mother failed/refused to perform parental duties |
| Whether §2511(a)(2),(5),(8) grounds were met (parental failure, conditions causing placement persist, etc.) | Mother argued evidence was insufficient to show refusal/failure or irremediable conditions | DHS presented PCE, testimony that Mother lacked insight, failed services, unstable housing, mental-health issues | Court: Agreement with DHS that statutory grounds were met (court need only find any one subsection) |
| Whether termination met the best-interests standard of §2511(b) | Mother contended §2511(b) is a best-interest standard only and argued DHS failed to establish (brief underdeveloped) | DHS argued Child’s developmental/emotional needs favored termination and adoption; Child bonded with foster mother | Court: Termination met §2511(b); adoption is in Child’s best interests; Mother’s §2511(b) claim waived for inadequate briefing |
| Whether change of permanency goal to adoption was appropriate | Mother did not properly preserve this claim on appeal | DHS contended adoption was appropriate given Child’s needs and foster placement stability | Court: Change to adoption not abused; goal change affirmed (claim waived by Mother for inadequate preservation) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one §2511(a) subsection need be proven to terminate)
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases)
- In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parent must use available resources to preserve parental relationship)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-part inquiry for §2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect of termination under §2511(b))
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole history, not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (requirement to evaluate parent-child bond under §2511(b))
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no statutory requirement for formal expert bonding evaluation)
- In the Interest of S.G., 922 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for change of goal to adoption)