In the Interest of: N.A.S., a Minor
71 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 2, 2016Background
- Child N.A.S., born Oct. 2013, was removed Dec. 24, 2013 after hospital admission for dehydration, hypothermia, and altered mental status; she was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster (kinship) care.
- Father (A.J.R.) was later identified; DHS set SCP objectives including mental-health compliance, anger management, parenting-capacity evaluation, supervised visitation, housing, and CUA services.
- Father was granted unsupervised overnight visits initially, but on May 30, 2015 N.A.S. sustained a pressed-cigarette burn to her face during an overnight visit with Father; Father did not seek medical care or report the injury and offered inconsistent explanations.
- After the burn, visits reverted to supervised; Father missed many supervised visits (citing transportation and weather), did not complete anger-management classes, failed to complete a parenting-capacity evaluation, and was inconsistent with mental-health treatment and medication management.
- DHS filed for involuntary termination of parental rights (23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b)); trial court terminated Father’s rights under § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b); Father appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties for 6+ months) | Father contended he completed SCP objectives and has present capacity to parent | Father missed visits, failed to complete anger management and parenting evaluation, inconsistent with mental-health treatment; May 2015 burn and failure to seek care show failure to perform duties | Affirmed: evidence satisfied § 2511(a)(1) |
| Whether § 2511(a)(2) grounds (repeated/continued incapacity or neglect causing child to lack essential parental care) were proven | Father argued his incapacity was remediable and he showed genuine effort to maintain relationship | DHS pointed to long placement (23+ months), continued noncompliance with services, and safety concerns from burn incident | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) proven; causes not remedied or unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether termination was contrary to child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b) | Father argued termination would harm child and impede bonding | DHS and caseworkers testified child is bonded to pre-adoptive kinship foster mother and has no bond with Father; foster home provides stability and safety | Affirmed: termination serves child’s best interests under § 2511(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (courts must consider children’s need for prompt stability; bond analysis and timing emphasized)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis—parental conduct then child’s needs)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (six‑month continuity rule and consideration of parent’s explanation/post‑abandonment contact)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for proving § 2511(a)(1))
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§ 2511(b) factors include love, comfort, security, stability; bond assessment guidance)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (criteria for § 2511(a)(2) termination)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no evidence of bond allows inference that no bond exists)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (courts may emphasize child safety and pre‑adoptive placement when assessing § 2511(b))