256 A.3d 1108
Pa.2021Background
- Mother (K.H.) had two children at issue (born 2014 and 2015); a third younger child remained in her custody. Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau removed the two children in Dec. 2017 after medical findings suggested possible abuse to the younger son and prior concerns about parenting, domestic violence, mental-health issues, housing, and employment.
- Agency filed dependency and provided a permanency plan requiring mental-health treatment, parenting and anger-management classes, stable housing and employment; the children were placed with kinship foster care and concurrent planning was used.
- Over the next 18–25 months Mother completed parenting and anger-management classes, secured employment and housing, had mixed participation in therapy (discharged for low attendance), and had regular supervised visits; the trial court found many removal conditions had been remedied and denied the Agency’s petitions to terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
- The Superior Court reversed, focusing primarily on Mother’s ongoing mental-health issues and holding termination appropriate under § 2511(a)(8) and (b); it rejected reliance on Mother’s ability to parent another child.
- The Supreme Court (Baer, C.J.) granted appeal, applied the abuse-of-discretion standard, rejected the Superior Court’s reweighing of the evidence, and vacated the Superior Court’s judgment, reinstating the trial court’s denial of termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Agency) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.J.T. appellate-review principles apply to termination proceedings | R.J.T. principle that appellate courts must defer to trial courts on fact-bound "close calls" applies equally to termination cases | R.J.T. was a goal-change case and is not controlling for termination; termination requires more exacting review because of permanent consequences | Court: R.J.T. standards apply equally; appellate courts must accept trial court factual/credibility findings and review for abuse of discretion |
| Whether Superior Court substituted its judgment for the trial court (reweighed evidence) | Superior Court improperly reweighed conflicting testimony and ignored the trial court’s factual findings (e.g., Mother’s progress, bond with children, and remedial steps) | Superior Court correctly reversed because record did not support several trial-court findings; Mother’s mental-health deficits and other evidence warranted termination | Court: Superior Court impermissibly focused on a single factor (mental health), reweighed evidence, and substituted its judgment; vacated Superior Court and reinstated trial court denial of termination |
| Admissibility/weight of evidence that Mother parents another child competently | Such evidence was relevant to credibility and overall parenting capacity; trial court may weigh it | Agency argued such evidence is irrelevant per Superior Court precedent and should not determine termination for other children | Court: Per se rule of inadmissibility rejected; evidence about parenting another child is potentially relevant and admissible under Pa.R.E. 401–403; weight for factfinder |
| Agency’s concurrent-planning conduct (reduction in visitation while seeking termination) | Agency undermined reunification by halving visitation when it filed for termination, violating concurrent-planning obligations | Agency contends concurrent planning does not preclude seeking termination and reduction was typical when termination is pursued | Court criticized Agency’s reduction of reunification services while termination was pending and noted it was inconsistent with concurrent-planning obligations; relevant to trial-court factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court on fact-intensive "close calls")
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for termination appeals; accept trial-court credibility findings)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (clear-and-convincing burden and appellate review limits in termination cases)
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Superior Court precedent on evidence about parenting other children; Supreme Court here rejects a per se inadmissibility rule)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental constitutional right)