In the Interest of: L.A.L.P., a Minor
In the Interest of: L.A.L.P., a Minor No. 687 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Child (born Apr. 2009) is medically complex (G-tube, seizures, cerebral palsy, developmental delays) and has not lived with Mother since DHS custody was obtained on March 27, 2014; Child has been in foster care ~34 months.
- DHS initially returned Child to Mother in 2013 but removed Child again in 2014 after medical neglect/uncharted bruising; dependency proceedings and a Family Service Plan (FSP) followed.
- Mother failed to complete key FSP objectives: she did not finish the second part of a Parenting Capacity Evaluation, was inconsistent in visitation (many missed/cancelled visits), did not obtain employment or complete housing/workshop steps, and limited DHS access to her home.
- Child is thriving in a medical foster home, is bonded to the foster mother (calls her “Mom”), has made developmental progress, and receives intensive medical/educational supports there.
- DHS sought involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) and a goal change from reunification to adoption; the trial court granted both and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a)(2) (repeated incapacity/neglect) | Mother contended DHS failed to show she was unfit or unwilling to parent and could remedy conditions | Mother repeatedly failed to remedy conditions leading to removal (medical noncompliance, unexplained injuries, incomplete services, inconsistent visits); Child needs exceeded Mother’s demonstrated capacity | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether §2511(a)(5) / (8) support termination (long-term removal and persistent conditions) | Mother argued goal change/termination were unjustified given efforts and partial compliance | Child had been removed >12 months (~34 months); conditions persisted and Mother could not/would not remedy them within a reasonable time despite services; termination best served Child’s needs | Affirmed: §2511(a)(5) and (8) grounds met; termination in Child’s best interest |
| Whether terminating Mother’s rights would violate §2511(b) (child’s needs, bond analysis) | Mother argued court failed to give proper weight to parental bond and Child’s emotional needs | Record showed weak/attenuated mother–child bond, strong foster bond, and evidence that severing legal ties would not cause irreparable harm while preserving Child’s stability | Affirmed: §2511(b) analysis supported termination; no existing beneficial parental relationship that termination would destroy |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was proper | Mother argued DHS did not prove adoption best suited Child’s needs/welfare | Given Mother’s insufficient progress, Child’s need for permanency, and strong foster bond and care, adoption better serves Child’s safety, stability, and development | Affirmed: goal change to adoption was not an abuse of discretion; adoption is in Child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination appeals)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (analysis of §2511(b) considerations and focus on child’s needs)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (importance of emotional bonds — love, comfort, security — in §2511(b) analysis)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s right to permanency and limits on indefinite foster care)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights convert to child’s right to proper parenting when parental duties are unmet)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear-and-convincing burden for termination petitions)