In the Interest of: M.A.J.F., a Minor
1306 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Father (M.T.F.) appealed involuntary termination of parental rights to three children (born 2011, 2013, 2014) after DHS removal and ~24 months in foster care.
- Children were removed after newborn tested positive for marijuana and parent circumstances (Mother’s drug use, housing, and criminal history); Mother’s rights were also terminated separately.
- Father had minimal compliance with DHS goals: never attended drug/alcohol counseling or parenting classes, had no suitable housing, and his participation in services and visitation was sporadic.
- Two supervision problems occurred during unsupervised visits: he left a child with an uncle and once misrepresented a visit (took children to Mother’s parents contrary to the plan), leading to supervision restrictions.
- Trial court found grounds to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and § 2511(b); Superior Court affirmed based on (a)(2) and (b) after reviewing record and witness credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS / Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties) | Insufficient evidence; Father disputed lack of effort | Father made minimal or no efforts to remedy conditions; failed to engage in services | Court affirmed termination (overall) but relied on (a)(2) and (b) as sufficient bases |
| Whether evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) (incapacity/refusal causing lack of essential parental care) | Insufficient evidence; argued opportunities/assistance lacking | Father repeatedly failed to remedy conditions, did not avail himself of services, and posed risks during visits | Court held competent evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(5) / (a)(8) (continued conditions after removal for 6/12+ months) | Insufficient evidence; argued DHS didn’t provide enough help/opportunities | Children were removed ~24 months; conditions persisted and father unlikely to remedy within reasonable time | Court affirmed overall, noting it need only find one valid statutory ground and found (a)(2) sufficient |
| Whether termination would meet children’s needs under §2511(b) (best interests; developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Argued bond and harms would not justify termination | Children bonded with foster mother; needs met by foster placement; termination would not cause irreparable harm | Court held termination met §2511(b); children would not suffer harm from termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of appellate review in parental termination cases)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may believe all, part, or none of evidence)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal or failure to perform duties)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold waiting for parent to improve)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental right yields to child’s right to permanent, safe environment)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one statutory ground)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (focus on developmental, physical, emotional needs and parent-child bond when deciding §2511(b))