In the Interest of: R.L.O., a Minor
1785 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- DHS removed two minor children from parental custody in October 2013 after reports of parental substance use, neglect, and unsafe supervision; children were placed with their maternal grandmother (kinship foster care).
- Over multiple permanency hearings (2013–2016) DHS developed single case plans requiring Father to address substance abuse, obtain/maintain housing, complete assessments/treatment, and participate in visits; Father intermittently tested positive for drugs, missed assessments, and relocated to Florida in 2014.
- Father had limited supervised visits (3–4 between May–Dec 2016), frequent telephone contact, and provided minimal financial support; he did not present documentation of a Florida treatment assessment at the termination hearing.
- DHS filed involuntary termination petitions (Aug. 2016) alleging grounds under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8); Mother executed voluntary relinquishment at the May 4, 2017 hearing.
- At the contested termination hearing (May 4, 2017) DHS caseworker and maternal grandmother testified the children were bonded to grandmother, doing well, and would not suffer irreparable harm if Father’s rights were terminated; the court found Father failed to remedy conditions and terminated his parental rights under § 2511(a)(1) and (2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds under §2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father repeatedly failed to perform parental duties for the six months before petition; did not remedy substance abuse or housing issues | Father argued lack of proper notice/service and that he had assessments and was willing to reunify; challenged credibility of DHS evidence | Court held DHS met clear-and-convincing proof; §2511(a)(1) satisfied (Father failed to perform duties; relocated; no proof of remediation) |
| Whether DHS proved grounds under §2511(a)(2) (incapacity/neglect not remediable) | Father’s continued substance use, noncompliance with treatment, and absence caused children to lack essential parental care | Father claimed he completed an assessment in Florida and provided info to caseworker | Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear-and-convincing evidence (repeated incapacity/refusal; causes not remedied) |
| Whether termination served children’s best interests under §2511(b) | Children are bonded to maternal grandmother, are stable, and would not suffer irreparable harm; termination promotes permanence | Father argued ongoing contact and desire for shared custody; contested bonding findings | Court held termination was in children’s best interest: primary consideration to developmental, physical, emotional needs favored permanence with grandmother |
| Whether Father was denied due process (notice/service and fair hearing) | N/A (DHS’s position: proper process was followed) | Father claimed insufficient service/notice and deprivation of due process | Court found Father was personally served with the permanency review order noting the contested hearing date, had counsel, participated, testified, and was not denied a fair hearing — due process claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of appellate review and §2511 bifurcated analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (framework for repeated and continued incapacity under §2511(a)(2))
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (clarifies burden and two-step §2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for §2511(a)(8) regarding 12-month removal period)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (consideration of child’s love, comfort, security, and stability under §2511(b))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bonding analysis and weight of caregiver/caseworker testimony)