In the Interest of: N.N.S., a Minor
505 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- DHS removed three minor children (one older child and twins) in Oct 2014 after reports of lack of supervision, missed medical care, truancy, and a drug-addicted maternal grandfather living in the home; children placed with maternal aunt and adjudicated dependent.
- Mother has diagnosed bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety; she attended outpatient therapy and medication management in 2015–early 2016 but discontinued medication and minimally engaged in treatment after an August 2016 discharge.
- Mother repeatedly left the children unsupervised and left them with the maternal grandfather despite his known drug addiction; she also exhibited threatening behavior toward a friend who was part of her aftercare support.
- DHS filed petitions in Nov 2016 to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights and change the goal to adoption; the January 19, 2017 termination hearing included testimony from DHS caseworker and the kinship caretaker.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the Superior Court affirmed, relying principally on (a)(2) and (b), finding Mother’s incapacity caused lack of essential parental care and could not be remedied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/City Solicitor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petitioner met burden to terminate Mother’s parental rights | Mother argued the termination was improper and that she had engaged in services and should retain rights | DHS argued clear and convincing evidence showed grounds under §2511(a) (esp. (a)(2)) and that termination served children’s welfare under §2511(b) | Court held petitioner met burden; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination served children’s best interests (§2511(b)) | Mother argued termination was not in children’s best interests; sought continued contact/rehabilitation | DHS argued children were flourishing in kinship placement, no harm from termination, and adoption was appropriate | Court found termination promoted children’s physical, emotional, educational stability and affirmed |
| Whether Mother’s mental health incapacity was remediable (§2511(a)(2)) | Mother contended she engaged in therapy and had an after-care plan, implying remediation possible | DHS showed Mother discontinued meds/therapy, reverted to unstable behavior, and repeatedly left children in unsafe care | Court held Mother’s incapacity was not remedied and supported termination under (a)(2) |
| Whether change of goal to adoption was proper | Mother argued goal change and termination were erroneous | DHS argued permanency via adoption was appropriate given kinship caregiver’s stable home and bond with children | Court approved goal change and adoption plan as consistent with children’s welfare |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clarifies clear-and-convincing evidence standard and need to examine individual circumstances)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination must prove at least one §2511(a) ground and §2511(b) best-interest requirement)
- In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for termination is abuse of discretion and limited to competent evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court may affirm termination based on any single subsection of §2511(a))
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (strength of child’s bond with prospective adoptive parent is important in best-interests analysis)