In the Interest of: M.T., Appeal of: C.T. and M.T.
101 A.3d 1163
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Two children (b. Sept 2010 and Oct 2011) were removed by voluntary placement agreement on June 22–25, 2012 and remained in foster/pre-adoptive care with the M. family thereafter.
- Medical evidence established that the younger child (M.J.T.) suffered burns, fractures, and bruising; doctors concluded injuries were non-accidental. The adjudication found abuse by clear and convincing evidence and prima facie implicated parents and paternal grandparents.
- County agency (BCCYF) provided extensive reunification services (FICS, parenting programs, counseling, Early Intervention) for ~12–17 months; visits remained fully supervised due to persistent safety concerns.
- Psychological testing found Mother functioning at approx. a 14-year-old developmental level and Father at approx. a 9-year-old level; evaluators and service providers testified these limitations hindered safe, consistent parenting.
- Trial court changed the permanency goal to adoption (June 10, 2013) and later (after a termination hearing Nov. 21, 2013) entered decrees terminating parental rights (March 5, 2014); the Superior Court affirmed both decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | BCCYF/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether goal should be changed from reunification to adoption | Parents: insufficient evidence; they attended services and visits and have a parental bond with the children | Agency: persistent safety risks, lack of insight/explanation for child's injuries, inability to move beyond fully supervised visits despite services | Court affirmed goal change—best interests of children favored adoption given ongoing safety concerns and lack of parental progress |
| Whether parental rights should be involuntarily terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (8) | Parents: insufficient evidence that conduct places child at risk or that conditions are unremedied; seek more time/services | Agency: >12 months in placement, continuing unremedied conditions (safety, unexplained abuse), parents’ intellectual/functional limitations preclude remedy | Court held statutory grounds satisfied by clear and convincing evidence and affirmed termination |
| Whether termination would serve children's needs and welfare under § 2511(b) (bond/needs) | Parents: court failed to fully account for parent-child bond and progress | Agency: children are bonded to foster/adoptive resource, thriving, and need permanency and stability; parental visits were more play than parenting | Court found termination in children’s developmental, physical and emotional best interests (bond to foster parents, stability) |
| Whether a goal change is prerequisite to TPR or whether appeals/timing affected TPR validity | Parents: procedural irregularity—trial court delayed entry of decrees pending goal-change appeal; this undermines TPR | Agency/Trial Court: goal change is not a necessary prerequisite to filing termination; termination may proceed even if reunification goal remains | Court held no error—agency may file termination without a prior goal change and affirmed TPR decrees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.W., 859 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2004) (goal change to adoption not required before initiating termination proceedings)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing goal-change/termination relationship)
- In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (agency may file termination petition while reunification remains the permanency goal)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts must defer to trial court factfinding and credibility in dependency/TPR cases)
- In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (best interests of the child govern goal-change analysis; parental rights are secondary)
- In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition and two-part inquiry for dependency: present lack of proper care and availability of such care)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (permanency disposition authority and objectives under Juvenile Act)
- In re H.V., 37 A.3d 588 (Pa. Super. 2012) (courts should consider bonds with parents, foster parents, and siblings in permanency decisions)