In the Interest of: M.P.H., a Minor
1008 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 28, 2016Background
- DHS became involved in 2008 due to domestic violence and abuse in the mother's household; M.B. was abusive and the home instability prompted GPS findings.
- Mother relinquished rights to two older children in 2011; the Children were born October 2013 and placed in DHS custody after an OPC in November 2013.
- The Children have remained in a WCA foster home since November 2013, now about 31 months old, with a loving, stable pre-adoptive caregiver.
- Paternity was established with 99.9999% probability in January 2015, and the court recognized Father as the putative father; Father consistently failed to engage with DHS efforts.
- Father participated minimally in scheduled visits (many late or missed) and never completed required services (housing, parenting classes, anger management, ARC participation).
- Mother’s rights had been terminated earlier; Father has not sought SCP objectives, contacted providers, or shown ongoing involvement with the Children’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved 2511(a)(2) grounds for termination | DHS: Father repeatedly failed to remedy incapacity and refused to engage. | Father: He made some efforts; housing and employment exist; visits were ongoing. | Yes; 2511(a)(2) proven by repeated incapacity and refusal to remedy. |
| Whether termination was in the children's best interests under 2511(b) | DHS: Children thrived in long-term foster care; risk of irreparable harm if parental rights preserved. | Father: Bond exists; termination harms the children. | Yes; best interests require termination and adoption goal. |
| Whether the goal change to adoption under 6351 was proper | DHS: Adoption best serves safety and welfare given stable foster placement. | Father: Reunification still possible; goal should remain reunification. | Yes; goal change to adoption proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (clear and convincing standard; termination appropriate where warranted)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in dependency/termination appeals)
- In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (placement decisions focus on child’s best interests)
- In re K.C.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no indefinite tolling of well-being; best interests control placement)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (child’s needs and welfare include emotional bonds and stability)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond/attachment considerations in 2511(b) analysis)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be indefinitely placed in limbo)
- In re M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clear and convincing standard for 2511(a)(2))