In the Interest of: N.K.S., a Minor
In the Interest of: N.K.S., a Minor No. 2778 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Mother (F.H.) appealed involuntary termination of her parental rights to two children (born 2011 and 2012) and the change of their permanency goals to adoption; DHS filed the termination petitions and foster parents had cared for the children since March 2013.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) on July 21, 2016; Mother timely appealed and the appeals were consolidated.
- At the July 21, 2016 termination hearing DHS presented testimony from the assigned social worker and the pre-adoptive foster father; Mother testified on her own behalf.
- Mother admitted she “gave up” on completing drug/alcohol and dual-diagnosis treatment, cited depression and caregiving burdens, and conceded she failed to complete parenting classes due to work, domestic situations, and caring for a disabled mother.
- The trial court found DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to perform parental duties for the requisite period and that termination served the children’s needs and welfare; the Superior Court affirmed, focusing on § 2511(a)(1) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds under § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties or settled purpose to relinquish) | Mother argued she did not abandon the children: she attended visits, assisted with appointments, and her medical/psychological issues explain noncompliance with objectives | DHS argued Mother failed to complete required services and objectives for the statutory period, conceded she "gave up" on treatment, and did not show the failures were caused by her maladies | Affirmed: § 2511(a)(1) satisfied — Mother failed to perform parental duties for the required period; court credited admissions and record evidence |
| Whether termination meets § 2511(b) (children's needs and welfare) | Mother argued children were bonded to her and visits went well, so termination would harm their emotional welfare | DHS and court emphasized children’s need for permanency, attenuated bond with Mother due to long foster placement, and foster placement stability | Affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied — termination served developmental, physical and emotional needs; bond with Mother was attenuated and permanency favored adoption |
| Whether court erred by not considering Mother’s explanations and post-removal contact | Mother contended the trial court ignored her explanation (medical issues) and post-removal involvement | DHS pointed to Mother’s testimony undermining medical-excuse claim and to the objective record of noncompliance | Denied: Court considered explanations and found them insufficient; Mother failed to prove causal link between maladies and service noncompletion |
| Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was improper | Mother raised goal-change in questions presented but made no developed argument on appeal | DHS supported goal change based on termination findings and children’s long-term foster placement | Waived as to goal-change claim due to lack of appellate argument; separately, trial court’s goal change upheld by outcome on § 2511 findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts defer to trial court factfindings and credibility in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial courts in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of M.R.D., 128 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2015) (interpretation of § 2511(a)(1) and required inquiries)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (direction on expedition of child-custody appeals and analysis of child welfare in termination)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus of § 2511(b) on child's needs and welfare)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (attenuated parent-child bond after prolonged foster care and consideration of foster bond)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate affirmation may rest on any valid subsection of § 2511(a))