In the Interest of: L.N., Appeal of: A.N., father
1182 WDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 15, 2018Background
- McKean County CYS obtained emergency custody of M.N. (b. 2010) and L.N. (b. 2009) in Feb. 2016 after Mother’s minor daughter accused Father (A.N.) of sexual abuse; the children were in foster care, briefly returned to Mother, then removed again and adjudicated dependent in July 2016.
- Father has a lengthy criminal history, substance-use and mental-health issues; he pled guilty to indecent assault (related to the abuse allegation) and was found a sexually violent predator required to register as a sex offender for life.
- Father has been incarcerated continuously since Feb. 2016; stipulated earliest release Aug. 2018 and latest Feb. 2021; he remains subject to ongoing sex-offender treatment and has limited prospects for resuming parental duties in the foreseeable future.
- The Agency filed petitions on Mar. 23, 2017 to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights; Mother voluntarily relinquished her rights; hearings were held May 15, 2017 and the court entered termination decrees on June 20–21, 2017.
- The trial court terminated Father’s rights under multiple subsections of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; the Superior Court affirmed based primarily on § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity) and § 2511(b) (children’s best interests), focusing on Father’s incarceration, criminal history, risk to children, and the stable, adoptive-ready foster placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care that cannot be remedied) | Father’s incarceration, extensive criminal history (including sexual offenses), substance abuse, and mental-health issues render him incapable of providing essential parental care now or in foreseeable future | Father argued his sentence is not lengthy, he’s participating in programs, complied with Agency requests, and maintained some contact with the children | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) given continuous incarceration, risk to children, and inability to remedy incapacity in foreseeable future |
| Whether applying § 2511(a)(11) or related law constituted an ex post facto violation | Agency relied on statutory termination grounds to protect children and pursue adoption | Father argued the court’s application of post-conviction status (sex-offender label) violated ex post facto principles | Not reached on merits: Superior Court affirmed on § 2511(a)(2) and § 2511(b), so constitutional challenge to § 2511(a)(11) was unnecessary |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under § 2511(b) (developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Children have a strong, stable bond with foster mother who seeks to adopt; foster home provides stability and therapeutic oversight; Father’s contact has been limited and sometimes upsetting to the children | Father asserted a meaningful bond with the children and argued termination’s emotional impact was not adequately considered | Affirmed: court reasonably found termination served children’s needs—bond with foster parent and need for permanence outweighed limited, strained bond with incarcerated Father |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: conduct prong then child best-interest prong)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreement with any one subsection of § 2511(a) and § 2511(b) is sufficient to affirm)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and inability; need not be limited to affirmative misconduct)
- In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parental incarceration can be dispositive in § 2511(a)(2) analysis depending on circumstances)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be subordinated indefinitely to parent’s progress)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) best-interest factors include bond analysis plus safety, stability, and continuity considerations)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider intangibles—love, comfort, security—when evaluating best interests)