In the Interest of: S.D.M., a Minor
889 EDA 2017
Pa. Super. Ct.Dec 12, 2017Background
- Mother (W.E.M.) had two daughters adjudicated dependent in 2014 and 2015 after DHS received reports of substance use, unstable housing, and leaving children with others; mother repeatedly tested positive for THC and failed to complete treatment programs.
- DHS developed Single Case Plans requiring parenting, mental-health, anger-management, and substance-abuse treatment and supervised visits; Mother was frequently noncompliant, discharged from services multiple times, and continued to test positive for drugs through 2016.
- DHS filed petitions in September 2016 to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under the Adoption Act and to change both children’s permanency goals to adoption under the Juvenile Act.
- At the February 8, 2017 hearing, DHS presented testimony from the CUA case manager; Mother testified but admitted she had not completed required treatments; the court found the CUA testimony credible.
- The trial court entered Decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and changed permanency goals to adoption; Mother appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/neglect) | Mother’s long-term substance use, repeated positive drug screens, failure to complete SCP services, and inability to remedy conditions justify termination | Mother argued she showed genuine interest and made efforts to maintain a parent-child relationship | Court affirmed termination: evidence supported finding of parental incapacity under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination met §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) | DHS: children placed in stable pre-adoptive homes; foster parents met therapeutic needs; no bond that would be irreparably harmed by termination | Mother argued termination would harm children's developmental, physical, emotional needs | Court held termination would not detrimentally affect children and was in their best interests under §2511(b) |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify before terminating rights | DHS contended it provided services and SCPs; efforts were sufficient | Mother (via counsel) challenged adequacy of reunification efforts | Court concluded reasonable-efforts argument not dispositive; cited precedent rejecting requirement that reasonable efforts prevent termination; affirmed termination |
| Whether goal change to adoption was appropriate under Juvenile Act §6351 | DHS: children’s placement was appropriate, mother noncompliant, progress insufficient — adoption is best suited to children’s welfare | Mother disputed goal change (largely waived on appeal) | Court found sufficient evidence to change goal to adoption and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standards for termination under Adoption Act)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (parental incapacity and remedial prospects under §2511)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus on child’s interests under §2511(b))
- In the Interest of D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency reasonable-efforts question not dispositive for termination under §2511)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (termination may be affirmed despite some parent–child bond when placement with parent is contrary to child’s best interests)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bonding analysis and admissible evidence for §2511(b) evaluation)