In the Interest of: M.L., a Minor Appeal of: D.L.
747 MDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 6, 2017Background
- Child (M.L.) born August 2015; placed in foster/kinship care within days of birth and remained in CYS custody her entire life up to appeal.
- Parents had documented mental health issues; mother previously had parental rights terminated to another child; father had prior psychiatric evaluation (2014) noting risk factors (anger, impulsivity).
- CYS developed a reunification plan requiring visits, mental-health/anger-management treatment, parenting services, verification of employment/ housing, and releases for records.
- Father’s compliance was minimal: sporadic visitation, failure to attend medical appointments, lack of verifiable treatment records, driving on a suspended license while transporting Child, eviction/unstable housing, and criminal convictions/incarceration.
- CYS filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); trial court granted termination and changed permanency goal to adoption; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Father repeatedly and continually failed or was incapable of providing essential parental care; failures cannot be remedied within a reasonable time | Father had resolved issues post-incarceration (employment, housing) and was primary caregiver during periods of visitation; visitation obstacles caused by CYS | Affirmed: court found repeated/continued incapacity and failure to remedy; (a)(2) satisfied |
| Whether termination meets child’s needs/welfare under § 2511(b) | Termination serves Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; Child bonded to kinship foster family who provides stability | Father claimed an existing parental bond and that suspension/reduction of visitation prevented bond development | Affirmed: court found primary bond with foster family, minimal bond with Father, and no irreparable harm from severance |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was proper | Goal change necessary because Father made no meaningful progress; delay would harm Child’s need for permanency | Father contended CYS impeded reunification by reducing/suspending visitation and thus undermined his opportunities | Affirmed: court found CYS made reasonable efforts, Father’s noncompliance and risks justified goal change to adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and bifurcated analysis under § 2511)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (focus on parent conduct under § 2511(a) and child needs under § 2511(b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. 1990) (parental bonds in form but not substance may be terminated to avoid indefinite instability)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (best-interest factors: love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for goal-change to adoption)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s life cannot be held in abeyance pending parental progress)
- In Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (permanency and best-interest emphasis under Juvenile Act/ASFA)