In the Interest of: M.M.C., a Minor
1178 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Children (born 2006 and 2011) were adjudicated dependent and placed with their maternal great-grandmother (foster/adoptive resource) in May 2014 after parental substance and neglect concerns. DHS/ CU A provided in‑home services and later committed the children to DHS custody.
- Father was incarcerated for drug offenses with projected release in 2017; prison offered parenting, anger management, and substance programs but Father’s engagement after 2012 was minimal per prison records.
- Initial permanency reviews (2014–2015) found Father compliant when his sole objective was maintaining contact by phone; by summer 2015 he lost phone privileges (solitary confinement) and had minimal contact since.
- DHS filed petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights and change the permanency goal to adoption on August 13, 2015; trial occurred January 27 and March 10, 2016. Mother consented to termination and did not appeal.
- Trial court found (and the Superior Court accepted) that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b): Father failed to perform parental duties / evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish and termination was in the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional interests.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved §2511(a)(1) (settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties) | Father argued he sought to maintain communication, was previously found compliant, prison programs availability wasn’t properly verified by CUA, and DHS relied improperly on his incarceration | Father failed to complete SCP objectives during the relevant six‑month period, did not utilize prison resources, lost phone access by his own conduct, never arranged visits, and had minimal contact since summer 2015 | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence satisfied §2511(a)(1) given Father’s sustained nonperformance and lack of utilization of available resources |
| Whether DHS proved §2511(b) (children’s needs and welfare) | Father argued ongoing telephone/letter contact and the existence of a paternal relationship would produce irreparable harm if severed | CUA testified there was no parental bond; children are bonded with foster mother who provides stability and seeks to adopt | Affirmed: termination would not cause irreparable harm and serves children’s best interests |
| Whether incarceration alone precludes termination | Father contended imprisonment should not be the primary basis for termination; CUA failed to fully verify program participation | DHS and court relied on precedent that incarceration does not bar termination where a parent fails to use available means to maintain relationship | Held: incarceration neither compels nor precludes termination; here Father’s failure to use available resources supported termination |
| Whether DHS made reasonable reunification efforts and considered bond evidence | Father claimed CUA did not meaningfully investigate program participation or children’s views | Trial court credited CUA’s testimony that efforts were made and that no beneficial father–child bond existed | Held: trial court’s credibility findings supported; DHS made reasonable efforts and bond analysis favored termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration does not automatically preclude termination; courts consider whether parent used available resources to maintain relationship)
- In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (parental duties continue during incarceration; failure to exercise reasonable firmness to maintain relationship may justify termination)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for abandonment under §2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, and effect under §2511(b))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; assess bonds and potential harm from severance)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (biological relationship or child’s affection alone insufficient to establish a beneficial bond for §2511(b))