In the Interest of: R.I.L., a Minor
732 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- DHS took five of Mother’s children into custody in Nov. 2014 after a GPS report that Mother left them unsupervised, police were called, and Mother was arrested for endangering welfare of children; children were found unkempt and without diapers/underwear in some cases.
- Children were adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS; Mother received a Single Case Plan (SCP) with objectives including substance‑abuse treatment, mental‑health treatment, housing, parenting, and regular drug screens and visitation.
- Mother had repeated positive drug screens (THC, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, opiates, cocaine), relapsed during the case, was noncompliant or only moderately compliant with services, and failed to secure appropriate housing; visits were inconsistent and at times reduced to supervised after positive screens.
- DHS filed petitions on Dec. 28, 2016 seeking involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to five children under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and a goal change to adoption; evidentiary hearing held Jan. 20, 2017.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the five children under § 2511(a)(2) (and other subsections) and found termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b); Mother appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (incapacity/neglect that cannot be remedied) | Mother: She has remedied conditions, is capable now, and was compliant enough to parent the children. | DHS: Mother repeatedly relapsed, failed to complete SCP objectives (substance‑abuse treatment, housing, mental health), had inconsistent visits, and cannot protect or properly care for the children. | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of ongoing incapacity; inability or unlikely ability to remedy within reasonable time justified termination under § 2511(a)(2). |
| Whether termination met children’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Mother: (argued insufficiently) preserving the parent–child bond and Mother’s improvements outweigh termination. | DHS: Children are bonded with relatives/kin caregivers; need permanency; no beneficial bond with Mother given safety and stability concerns. | Affirmed: termination served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; bonds with caregivers and need for permanency outweighed any parental bond. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in dependency/termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for incapacity/termination and appellate review)
- In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under § 2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity as basis for termination)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, and stability in § 2511(b) analysis)