252 A.3d 681
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- Child (b. 2009) was adopted in April 2017 by D.S. (Father), who is also the child’s biological grandfather; the mother had substance issues and her rights had been terminated earlier.
- In May–June 2017 Father disciplined Child with a flyswatter, causing abrasions; CYF investigated, Father was criminally prosecuted, and Child was placed with foster parents in June 2017 and adjudicated dependent.
- Father completed a parenting program and participated in supervised visits through late 2017–mid 2018, but Child began refusing visits in 2018 and Father’s last in-person visit was June 2018.
- CYF petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (filed Sept. 2019); a termination hearing occurred Aug. 21, 2020; the trial court entered a decree terminating Father’s rights on Sept. 23, 2020 under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).
- At the termination hearing CYF relied on therapist testimony that Child showed trauma-related symptoms; Father relied on a psychologist (Dr. Rosenblum) who attributed Child’s refusal to parental alienation by foster parents and recommended against termination.
- The trial court’s written opinion credited a dependency-period psychiatric report by Dr. Donnesha Slider (not admitted or testified to at the termination hearing) and rejected Dr. Rosenblum; the Superior Court vacated the decree and remanded because the court impermissibly relied on off‑record evidence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYF) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a)(2), (5), (8) were met | Father’s conduct caused trauma and Child remains without essential parental care; conditions not remedied | Father completed programs, attended visits when Child would come, and inability to reunify was due to foster-parent alienation | Trial court found grounds and terminated, but Superior Court vacated and remanded due to reliance on off‑record evidence rather than resolving merits on appeal |
| Whether the trial court may consider a psychiatric report from the dependency record that was not admitted at the termination hearing | Court relied on Dr. Slider’s dependency report to corroborate trauma findings | Father argued he had no notice of or opportunity to confront Dr. Slider; court improperly considered off‑record evidence | Held error: trial court improperly considered evidence outside the termination record; error not harmless; vacated and remanded for a new hearing |
| Whether termination satisfied §2511(b) best‑interests analysis (bond and child welfare) | Termination served Child’s emotional and safety needs given trauma symptoms and therapy corroboration | Father argued an emotional bond existed and that alienation, not trauma, explained refusal to visit; termination unnecessary | Superior Court did not decide the merits of §2511(b) because remand was required for a new evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis in termination cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of termination standard and bond analysis)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreeing with any one §2511(a) ground plus §2511(b))
- M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d 950 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court may not consider evidence outside the record)
- In re A.J.R.-H., 188 A.3d 1157 (Pa. 2018) (harmless‑error standard in termination proceedings)