267 A.3d 517
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- CYF became involved in 2012; maternal grandmother obtained kinship custody of Child 1 and Child 2 in April–May 2018 and they were adjudicated dependent. Child 3 was removed at birth in May 2019 after Mother and the newborn tested positive for THC and was placed with maternal grandmother.
- Court-ordered reunification goals required Mother to engage in drug/alcohol and mental-health treatment, submit to random drug screens, participate in coached visitation and forensic evaluation, maintain sobriety, and resolve criminal matters. Mother largely failed to comply.
- Mother attended few supervised visits, tested positive on every completed drug screen, attended only 7 of 66 scheduled screens, and did not complete or document ongoing treatment; she missed court-ordered psychological evaluations.
- Maternal grandmother provided stable, attentive, long-term care; all three children are bonded to her, have made developmental progress in her care, and have expressed desire to remain with her permanently.
- Court-appointed expert (Dr. Pepe) observed strong attachments between the children and grandmother, could not evaluate Mother because Mother failed to attend, and testified that inconsistent contact by Mother undermined the possibility of a meaningful parent–child bond, especially for Child 3 who had known only grandmother as caregiver.
- Orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8) and concluded termination also served the children’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b); Mother appealed only the § 2511(b) determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination best serves the children’s developmental, physical and emotional needs under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Mother: record lacks clear-and-convincing evidence on § 2511(b); court applied a fault-based analysis and failed to show severing the bond wouldn’t harm children | CYF/Orphans’ Court: Mother’s instability, chronic noncompliance, drug use, missed visits and failure to progress toward goals show she cannot meet children’s safety, permanency, and stability needs; children’s primary attachment to grandmother favors adoption | Affirmed: court properly considered evidence of Mother’s conduct and children’s safety/permanency needs and concluded termination under § 2511(b) was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.M., 106 A.3d 114 (Pa. Super. 2014) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/§ 2511(b) analysis; court may prioritize child safety and permanency over parental bond)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (courts should evaluate existence and effect of parent–child bond when applying § 2511(b))
- In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental inability to meet irreducible minimums can justify termination despite existing emotional ties)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental constitutional rights yield to child’s right to safe, permanent environment after failure to fulfill parental duties)
- In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2018) (court may consider parent’s capacity to provide safety/security in § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishes § 2511(a) conduct inquiry from § 2511(b) best-interest analysis)
- In re Coast, 561 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en banc) (same principle regarding separation of § 2511(a) and § 2511(b) analyses)