In the Interest of M.P., minor, Appeal of: J.P.
In the Interest of M.P., minor, Appeal of: J.P. No. 336 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Child (born Dec. 2014) was removed at birth for neonatal methadone withdrawal; adjudicated dependent and placed with current foster family in Feb. 2015.
- CYF previously removed two of Mother’s children for substance abuse, mental-health, and criminal-history concerns; Mother’s rights to those children were later terminated by consent.
- CYF established Family Service Plan (FSP) goals for Mother (treatment, evaluation, visitation, housing, contact) and Father (sobriety, treatment documentation, random screens, visitation, housing, contact).
- Both parents repeatedly failed to comply: missed/ refused drug screens, missed visits, failed to complete evaluations; Father had extensive criminal history and only 8 visits in two years.
- Psychological evaluator (Dr. O’Hara) found Child bonded to foster mother, Mother unstable with parenting deficits and relapse history, and little evidence of a bond between Child and Father.
- Trial court terminated both parents’ rights (Jan. 26, 2017); parents appealed raising statutory and counsel-appointment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF proved grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) (repeated/continued incapacity and unremedied conditions) | Mother: she remedied FSP goals (stable housing, completed inpatient treatment) and thus termination was improper | CYF/Father concede statutory grounds established (Father concedes a(2)); trial court: parents repeatedly failed to remedy conditions or comply with services | Affirmed. Court found clear-and-convincing evidence under §2511(a)(2) (and relied on a(5)/(8) as alternative grounds) |
| Whether termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under §2511(b) (bond analysis and best interests) | Parents: court over-relied on foster mother bond and didn’t properly analyze harm from severing parental bonds | CYF: Child is securely attached to foster mother; removal would harm Child; parental bonds are weak or in form only | Affirmed. Court found termination best served Child’s needs; benefits of permanency with foster mother outweighed distress from severing parental ties |
| Whether L.B.M. v. requirement to appoint separate counsel for child (23 Pa.C.S. §2313(a)) requires reversal/remand because dependency GAL represented Child | Father: L.B.M. requires independent counsel for child’s legal interests; GAL alone is insufficient | Trial court/record: Child (nonverbal toddler) was represented by counsel/GAL who zealously advocated and no conflict existed; per competing L.B.M. opinions, GAL may suffice when interests align | Denied. No relief: GAL adequately represented child’s interests; L.B.M. did not mandate reversal on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) framework)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and inability to perform duties)
- In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. 1990) (parental bonds that exist only in form may be terminated to avoid indefinite instability)
- In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (Supreme Court: courts must appoint counsel for child in contested termination proceedings; debate whether GAL suffices as counsel)