In the Interest of: M.E.D.L., a Minor
744 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 23, 2017Background
- DHS received substantiated GPS reports in late 2013 alleging lack of heat/food, missed medical care for M.E.D.L. (a child with cerebral palsy), and inappropriate supervision; children were repeatedly missing appointments.
- M.E.D.L. was adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS on March 7, 2014; three siblings were adjudicated and committed on June 18, 2014; all placed with their maternal grandmother (Foster Mother).
- Mother entered inpatient substance treatment briefly in March 2014 but left against medical advice in May 2014; DHS repeatedly referred Mother to evaluations, treatment, parenting classes, drug screens, and supervised visitation per Family Service Plans (FSPs).
- Over the next year Mother was found non‑compliant at permanency reviews and failed to complete FSP objectives (no sustained sobriety, no mental health treatment, no housing, very limited visitation: one 20‑minute supervised visit shortly before termination hearing).
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights and change permanency goals to adoption on October 29, 2015; the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under §2511(a)(8) was proper (12+ months, conditions continue, best for child) | Mother claimed bond with children and had begun remedying conditions | Children had been removed >12 months; Mother failed to complete FSPs, lacked housing, treatment, court compliance, and had minimal visitation | Court: §2511(a)(8) satisfied; conditions persisted and termination served children’s needs and welfare |
| Whether termination violated §2511(b) (children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs) | Mother argued termination would harm children due to existing bond | DHS: children attached to Foster Mother; little to no bond with Mother; no irreparable harm from severance | Court: competent evidence showed no irreparable harm; §2511(b) satisfied |
| Whether DHS made reasonable reunification efforts | Mother argued DHS failed to explore alternatives and that her lack of income caused issues | DHS documented repeated referrals, services, and reasonable efforts; Mother was non‑compliant | Court: DHS made reasonable efforts; Mother’s noncompliance was dispositive |
| Due process / equal protection claim | Mother alleged procedural errors deprived her rights (vague) | DHS/trial court: claim undeveloped and unsupported | Court: claim forfeited/declined to address due to inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review and burden in termination appeals)
- In re M.G. and J.G., Minors, 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., Jr., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent’s post‑petition remediation not controlling for certain grounds)
- In re J.L.C. and J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (three‑part test for §2511(a)(8))
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (analysis of needs and welfare under §§2511(a)(8) and (b))