In the Interest of: Q.B.P.
345 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 10, 2016Background
- Mother (J.C.) appealed the involuntary termination (Feb 4, 2016) of her parental rights to her son Q.B.P. (born May 2003), who had been in BCCYS custody since May 2011.
- BCCYS filed the termination petition on Sept. 27, 2012; the termination hearing was held Feb. 1, 2016.
- The trial court found long-standing concerns: untreated mental-health issues, substance use, histories of physical abuse, unstable housing, failure to comply with court-ordered services, and incidents (including refusal of medication for the child) that endangered the child’s safety.
- Psychologist Dr. Rotenberg and other professionals concluded Mother remained unable to safely parent; the child had significant psychiatric diagnoses and a strong, positive attachment to his therapeutic foster parent.
- The trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); the Superior Court affirmed, focusing on subsections (a)(2) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | BCCYS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §2511(a)(2) | Mother argued she had remedied conditions (sobriety, church support, employment, housing) and complied with services prior to petition | Mother remained incapacitated to parent; long record of noncompliance, ongoing mental-health and parenting deficits, and expert opinion showing she could not remediate | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether the court properly considered child’s needs under §2511(b) (bonding/ welfare) | Mother argued post-petition improvements and delay should weigh against termination; alleged disparate services to families of color | Child’s welfare and need for stability favored adoption; child had no meaningful bond with Mother and had a strong attachment to foster parent; delays did not undermine findings | Affirmed: termination is in child’s best interests under §2511(b) |
| Relevance of agency reasonable-efforts / alleged racial disparity in services | Mother argued BCCYS failed to provide culturally competent, peer professionals, and that post-petition efforts should be considered | Agency argued reasonable-efforts inquiry is not required for §2511(a)(2); even so, BCCYS made reasonable efforts and Mother failed to progress | Held: reasonable-efforts not required under §2511(a)(2); claim lacks merit and record shows reasonable efforts |
| Effect of delay between petition filing and hearing | Mother argued nearly two-year delay made post-petition progress relevant and prejudiced her | BCCYS noted delay provided Mother additional time to remedy conditions; child remained dependent and unrehabilitated | Held: delay did not undermine termination; passage of time favored Mother but she still failed to remedy the problems |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (explaining appellate deference and factfinding in dependency/termination cases)
- In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard; termination framework)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bonding analysis and weighing parental bond against need for permanency)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may rely on social-worker testimony for bond analysis; life cannot be put on hold for parental rehabilitation)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable-efforts inquiry not required for §2511(a)(2) determinations)