In the Interest of: N.S.D., a Minor
1216 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- DHS filed dependency petitions for two daughters (born 2011, 2012) after long prior involvement with Mother, citing substance abuse, mental-health issues, unstable housing, and prior removals of other children. Children entered foster care January 2015 and were adjudicated dependent March 2015.
- Mother failed to comply with many Single Case Plan (SCP) objectives: no stable housing or employment, not engaged in mental-health treatment, inconsistent visitation until Sept. 2016, and reported aggressive/threatening conduct toward foster caregivers.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights January 24, 2017; termination hearing held March 16, 2017; Mother did not attend the hearing.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b); Mother appealed.
- Superior Court reviewed de novo with deference to trial-court credibility findings, affirmed termination as to Section 2511(a) but vacated and remanded for further proceedings on Section 2511(b) (best interests) due to inadequate evidence about the parent–child bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(2) grounds supported termination | Mother: DHS failed to prove clear-and-convincing evidence; she completed housing, anger management, parenting programs, and a parenting-capacity evaluation | DHS/TC: Mother remained incapable of parenting—unstable housing, no employment, unresolved mental-health issues, inconsistent compliance, threatening behavior toward foster family | Held: Affirmed. §2511(a)(2) satisfied (parental incapacity not remedied) |
| Whether §2511(b) (child’s needs/welfare) supported termination | Mother: Continued visitation, prior parenting time, and likely bond; DHS failed to show termination is in children’s best interests | DHS/TC: Children are doing well in foster home; no positive, healthy maternal relationship; no irreparable harm if terminated | Held: Vacated and remanded. Evidence at hearing was too sparse and conclusory on bond and best-interest effects; trial court must conduct additional factfinding |
| Whether procedural errors (e.g., evidentiary gaps) require remand | Mother: Insufficient evidence presented at termination hearing, especially on bond and harm | DHS/TC: Case facts and testimony supported termination | Held: Remand required limited to §2511(b) bond/best-interest inquiry; §2511(a) need not be relitigated unless relevant |
| Whether permanency-goal change was preserved for appeal | Mother: Implicitly challenged goal change orders | DHS/TC: Mother did not preserve issue in concise statement or brief | Held: Waived—court declined to review goal-change orders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement on any §2511(a) ground plus §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for §2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and inability to perform duties)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs indefinite parental rehabilitation)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§2511(b) factors: bond analysis, safety, continuity, and foster placement benefits)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court should consider intangibles and continuity in §2511(b) analysis)
- In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (remand where record lacks sufficient evidence on parent–child bond)