In the Interest of: L.C.L., a Minor
In the Interest of: L.C.L., a Minor No. 3556 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Child born Jan 2015; Agency discovered birth April 2015 during a visit concerning Child’s half-sisters, who had been abused while in Mother and Father’s care; Agency obtained protective custody and temporary commitment.
- Mother had pled guilty in 2013 for abuse of the older girls and served 18 months; Mother and Father were granted supervised weekly visits with Child while Child was adjudicated dependent in May 2015.
- Agency filed petitions in May 2016 to terminate both parents’ rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and sought to change the permanency goal to adoption.
- At hearings (June and October 2016) Agency presented a parenting-capacity evaluation, caseworker testimony, and kinship-care observations; Father testified and denied that abuse of the older children had occurred and disputed his role.
- The trial court found Father repeatedly denied the prior abuse and therefore could not acknowledge or remedy the causes of his incapacity to parent; it terminated Father’s parental rights under § 2511(a)(2) and (b) and changed the goal to adoption. Appeal followed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination justified under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity) | Father: He has been present since birth, provided care, has housing, attends visits and completed some therapy; he can parent and the evaluation was wrong. | Agency: Father persistently denies abuse of older children that occurred in his care, has not remedied the incapacity to prevent future abuse, and evaluation and caseworker show incapacity. | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear and convincing evidence (court credited expert and caseworker; Father’s denial shows unremedied incapacity). |
| Whether termination meets child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Father: Strong bond with Child; termination would destroy Child’s source of love, comfort, stability; common-sense harm. | Agency: Child is safe in kinship care, bond is attenuated given child’s age and custody history; termination will allow needed permanency. | Affirmed: Termination would not cause irreparable harm; best interests favor adoption/permanency. |
| Whether goal change to adoption was proper | Father: Impliedly opposes goal change because he can parent and is bonded with Child. | Agency: Child needs permanency; Father has not remedied impediments; adoption best serves safety and welfare. | Affirmed: Goal change to adoption appropriate given Child’s need for permanency and safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate review standard—defer to trial court factual and credibility findings)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial court credibility deference in termination cases)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of § 2511(a))
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 472 (Pa. Super. 2010) (elements of § 2511(a)(2) defined)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties require affirmative, consistent provision of safety and stability)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no evidence of bond permits inference that no bond exists)
- In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (bond is one factor under § 2511(b); safety and permanency may predominate)