In the Interest of: L.B., a Minor
3576 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- DHS removed four children (born 2007–2010) from parents in Jan 2011 after unsafe, bed-bug infested conditions, parental incapacity, and an eviction; children placed with Devereux foster family and remained there.
- Father suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, had periods of medication noncompliance, completed some services (drug treatment, parenting classes, housing pre‑incarceration) but continued to show impulsivity, aggression, and difficulty managing the children (two children with autism/special needs).
- DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption in 2012; initial termination petitions were denied in 2013, then DHS refiled in 2014; termination hearing occurred Oct. 19, 2015 while Father was incarcerated.
- Caseworkers testified Father had not met children’s needs for years, visits showed frustration and inability to supervise all four children, and foster parents provided stable, bonded care for ~5 years.
- Trial court credited DHS witnesses over Father, found Father’s incapacity continued and could not be remedied, terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b), and changed goal to adoption; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(2) supports termination (parental incapacity) | Father: He is mentally stable, completed FSP objectives, compliant with meds and services, has housing plan, can parent on release | DHS: Father has chronic mental-health issues, intermittent med noncompliance, demonstrated impulsivity/aggression, failed to remedy core parenting deficits over years; cannot meet children’s needs | Affirmed: §2511(a)(2) satisfied — clear & convincing evidence of repeated/continued incapacity not likely to be remedied |
| Whether §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare) supports termination | Father: Strong bond with children; severing rights would devastate them | DHS: Bond to foster parents is stronger; children rely on foster parents for daily needs; severing biological bond will not harm children’s welfare and facilitates permanence | Affirmed: §2511(b) satisfied — termination is in children’s developmental, physical, and emotional best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard: defer to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (discusses termination based on parental incapacity and statutory criteria)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (emphasizes child’s need for timely permanence and weighing harm of severing parental bonds)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental love alone insufficient to preclude termination)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court may affirm termination on any one subsection of §2511(a))