In the Interest of: M.S.D., Jr., a Minor
1117 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Child and siblings were removed in Sept. 2014 after reports of sexual exploitation of eldest sibling, physical abuse, and hazardous home conditions (rodent/cockroach infestations, exposed wiring). Child was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
- DHS filed petitions (June 22, 2016) to terminate Mother's parental rights and change the permanency goal to adoption; Child had been in care ~29 months at trial.
- Mother repeatedly denied all allegations (sexual exploitation, physical abuse, unsafe home), refused a recommended polygraph, and declined to provide releases for the content of her psychotherapy; therapy was inconsistent (multiple therapists).
- Mother completed some parenting and anger-management classes, but experts and caseworkers testified she gained little insight and had not completed all SCP objectives; Child consistently refused visits and reported fear of returning to Mother.
- The family court found DHS made reasonable reunification efforts, the conditions that led to placement persisted (or Mother had not remedied them), and that Child was bonded to and thriving with foster parents who sought adoption.
- The court entered orders terminating Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and changed the permanency goal to adoption; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) supports termination (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Mother's sustained failure over the relevant period to complete SCP objectives, to acknowledge causes of removal, and to maintain contact shows failure to perform duties. | Mother claims she completed SCP objectives, benefitted from classes, and disputes allegations; blames agency for restricting visits. | Court: Termination under (a)(1) supported—Mother failed to perform duties and evidenced settled purpose by lack of remedial progress. |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) supports termination (continued incapacity/neglect) | Mother's repeated denial of allegations, inconsistent therapy, refusal to disclose treatment, and inability to protect Child show incapacity that cannot be remedied. | Mother asserts ongoing therapy and class completion show efforts and capacity to parent. | Court: Termination under (a)(2) supported—conditions causing removal could not be remedied and Child lacked essential parental care. |
| Whether §2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) support termination (placement time + unremedied conditions) | Child in care >6 months (and >12 months); despite services, conditions persisted or Mother failed to remedy them; termination best serves Child. | Mother contends she completed many services and that home is now appropriate; challenges characterization of noncompliance. | Court: Termination under (a)(5) and (a)(8) supported—Child in care long enough, conditions remained effectively unremedied, and termination served Child's needs. |
| Whether §2511(b) and goal change to adoption are in Child's best interests | Severing rights would not destroy any necessary beneficial bond; Child is bonded to foster family, safer there, and wants adoption; safety, permanency, well-being favor adoption. | Mother argues bond existed and she is improving; goal change premature. | Court: Held termination and goal change appropriate—bond to Mother attenuated; Child benefits from permanence via adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and two-step §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate review limits and deference to factfinder)
- In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (clear-and-convincing proof burden in termination cases)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (framework for §2511(a)(2): repeated incapacity causing lack of essential parental care)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§2511(a)(8) twelve-month timing and focus on present conditions)
- In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) (prioritizing child's safety, permanency, and well-being in permanency/goal-change decisions)