In the Interest of: N.A.P., a Minor
In the Interest of: N.A.P., a Minor No. 1962 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 23, 2017Background
- Mother (D.P.) has four children who entered DHS care after reports of neglect, substance abuse, mental-health crises, and a November 2015 stabbing incident that led to Mother’s arrest and K.D.P.'s removal.
- DHS obtained protective custody/orders and the three older children were adjudicated dependent in April 2014; the youngest was adjudicated in November 2015 and all children entered foster care for extended periods (older three ~23 months; youngest ~7½ months at termination).
- Mother repeatedly failed to comply with Family Single Case Plan (FSP) objectives addressing mental health, substance-abuse treatment, stable employment, and visitation; she was discharged from treatment programs for inactivity or misconduct and had periods of incarceration.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and (b) (K.D.P.’s petition later added (a)(5)); Fathers’ rights were also terminated but are not part of the appeal.
- At the May 23, 2016 hearing, DHS presented social-worker testimony about Mother’s lack of sustained sobriety, inconsistent services participation, sporadic visitation after incarceration, and the children’s strong bonding with their foster mother.
- The Juvenile Court found clear-and-convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s rights under the cited subsections and that termination served the children’s best interests; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination justified (failure to perform parental duties / settled purpose) | Mother failed to perform parental duties for the statutory period: did not maintain sobriety, complete treatment, secure employment, or sustain visitation; FSP objectives unmet. | Mother contends the evidence was insufficient to show a settled purpose to relinquish rights or a sustained failure to perform parental duties. | Court held DHS proved failure to perform parental duties by clear and convincing evidence; §2511(a)(1) satisfied. |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) termination justified (repeated/incapacity causing lack of essential parental care) | Mother’s repeated incapacity (substance abuse, mental-health instability, incarceration) caused children to lack essential parental care and those conditions were unlikely to be remedied. | Mother argued her circumstances could be remedied and termination was premature. | Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied: repeated incapacity caused lack of essential care and conditions were unlikely to be remedied. |
| Whether termination meets children’s needs and welfare under §2511(b) (best interests/bond) | Children were bonded to foster mother, showed no negative effects from reduced contact with Mother, and would not suffer irreparable harm; adoption served stability. | Mother argued termination was not in children’s best interests. | Court held termination is in children’s best interests under §2511(b); permanency via adoption appropriate. |
| Whether DHS made reasonable reunification efforts / goal change appropriate | DHS provided services, FSP objectives, supervised visitation and offered treatment referrals; despite efforts, Mother did not remedy conditions. | Mother claimed insufficient reasonable efforts and challenged the change-to-adoption disposition. | Court found DHS’s efforts adequate and that goal change to adoption was appropriate given Mother’s lack of progress. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of appellate review and bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (scope of review; affirm if any proper basis exists)
- In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (burden of proof and credibility determinations in termination cases)
- Geiger v. Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (principles underlying repeated/incapacity grounds now embodied in §2511(a)(2))
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole history; parental duty as affirmative obligation)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (when §2511(b) bond analysis is required and who may testify on bonding)