In the Interest of: N.D.L.S., a Minor
2553 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 3, 2018Background
- Child N.D.L.S. was taken into DHS care March 30, 2015 after concerns about housing, parental substance use, and alleged domestic violence; the child was adjudicated dependent and remained in care.
- Father (E.B.) had recent criminal history and was incarcerated at Curran-Fromhold serving a 3–6 year sentence during much of the dependency/termination proceedings.
- DHS developed Single Case Plans requiring father to address parenting, housing, employment, anger management and to make his whereabouts known; DHS reported little to no compliance or documented completion while father was incarcerated.
- DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
- At the July 11, 2017 TPR hearing social worker testimony established: father had no visits while imprisoned, no proof of completing SCP objectives, the child had been in care for 17 months, and the child had a parent-like bond with the maternal aunt foster caregiver.
- The Family Court (Judge Younge) found DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination and that termination served the child’s best interests; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) supports termination (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father failed to perform parental duties for the six months before the petition: no visits, no documented compliance, unavailable due to incarceration | Father claimed he completed SCP objectives and contested sufficiency of evidence | Held: Sufficient evidence of failure/refusal to perform duties; (a)(1) proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) supports termination (incapacity/continued refusal) | Father’s repeated incapacity/refusal (including non-contact while incarcerated) left child without essential parental care and conditions are unlikely to be remedied | Father argued incarceration alone cannot support termination and claimed remediation efforts | Held: (a)(2) satisfied—incarceration coupled with failure to utilize resources and absence rendered incapacity unremedied |
| Whether §2511(a)(5) and (8) support termination (removal period and persistent conditions) | Child in DHS custody >6 months (and >12 months); conditions leading to removal persist and are not likely to be remedied; termination best serves child | Father disputed adequacy of DHS efforts and contested findings of unremedied conditions | Held: (a)(5) and (a)(8) established—child removed >6/12 months, conditions continue, termination favors child’s welfare |
| Whether §2511(b) (best interests / bond) precludes termination | Child bonded with maternal aunt (parental substitute); severing father’s rights will not cause irreparable harm; termination promotes stability and permanency | Father argued bonds/efforts weigh against severance | Held: (b) supports termination—no necessary beneficial bond with father and adoption by aunt best serves child’s needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of appellate review and two-step §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court credibility and scope of review in TPR cases)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (broad record review; appellate deference to trial court findings)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (incarceration does not automatically bar termination; parent must use available resources)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements and three-line inquiry for §2511(a)(1))
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole history; parental duties are affirmative and ongoing)