In the Interest of: L.L.D., a Minor
1756 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Child (born Feb. 2015) was removed at birth after testing positive for marijuana; DHS placed Child in foster care and filed to terminate Father’s parental rights on Feb. 16, 2016.
- Genetic testing established J.B. as Child’s biological father; hearings were held May 10, 2017 before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
- Caseworkers testified Father had minimal contact: roughly eight hours total with Child, attended only 4 of ~25 scheduled visits, missed ~25 visits, and made no meaningful inquiries about Child’s health or development.
- Child is strongly bonded to pre-adoptive foster parents and siblings; evidence showed Child was upset around Father and had no established parent–child bond.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b) (with the court later stating termination was based on (a)(1) and (2)), and changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption; Father appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal.
- The Superior Court conducted independent review, concluded the appeal was frivolous, affirmed termination and the goal change, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties/settled purpose to relinquish) | Father refused/failed to perform parental duties for the statutory period — minimal visits, no contact with caseworkers or foster parents, no involvement in Child’s needs | Father contested termination (appeal); record shows no sustained effort to parent and he offered explanations but did not rebut evidence of failure | Affirmed: competent record evidence supports termination under (a)(1) |
| Whether DHS proved grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity to care) | Father failed to assume parental role and provide care; lack of relationship/engagement indicates inability to parent | Father asserted rights but did not demonstrate capacity via consistent contact or care | Court affirmed termination based on (a)(2) as applied in trial court (trial court focused primarily on (a)(1)/(2)) |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (consider child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Child is bonded to foster parents; all needs met; no bond with Father; Father’s presence upsets Child | Father argued appeal but offered no evidence that termination would harm Child or that continued contact was in Child’s welfare | Affirmed: termination serves Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was proper | Adoption is in Child’s best interests given strong foster-family bond and Father’s lack of involvement | Father did not preserve this argument in concise statement; generally argued against termination | Affirmed: goal change to adoption not an abuse of discretion; Father waived specific challenge but record supports change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standards for appellate review of termination orders)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of § 2511(a) need be proved to affirm termination)
- 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 T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (requirement to evaluate parent–child bond when considering § 2511(b))
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements)