In the Interest of: S.K., Appeal of: S.K.
1599 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Child (born Sept. 2006) was removed on Jan. 4, 2013 after police found her home alone near a space heater; Mother was arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor and Child was adjudicated dependent on Jan. 29, 2013.
- Child remained in CYS custody and was placed with relatives; permanency goal changed from reunification to adoption on July 16, 2014. Child moved to Georgia to live with maternal aunt on Nov. 22, 2014 and is reported to be thriving there.
- CYS required mental-health evaluations and services for Mother; evaluations diagnosed significant emotional/ personality disorders (paranoid and narcissistic features) and recommended psychiatric treatment and individual counseling.
- Mother was often uncooperative with CYS, refused some services and documentation, made inappropriate comments during visits, declined offered in‑home visits, and largely failed to engage in recommended mental‑health treatment or provide records of treatment.
- CYS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); a hearing was held Nov. 2, 2015 (Mother did not appear). The trial court terminated Mother’s rights (Apr. 27, 2016); Mother appealed on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was insufficient to involuntarily terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Mother contends evidence was insufficient and mental‑health issues alone do not bar parenting; contesting trial court’s findings and seeking different credibility determinations | CYS argued Mother persistently failed to engage in services, neglected mental‑health treatment, and exhibited conduct over time showing failure to perform parental duties; Child bonded with and is thriving in kinship pre‑adoptive placement | Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(1) (clear and convincing evidence Mother failed to perform parental duties over time) |
| Whether termination would be contrary to Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Mother implied termination would harm parent‑child bond; argued capacity issues should not be decisive | CYS showed Child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs are met in aunt’s home; bonding evaluation showed Child bonded with aunt; caseworker opined adoption by aunt in Child’s best interest | Court held termination meets § 2511(b); primary consideration is Child’s welfare and adoption by aunt is in Child’s best interest |
| Whether trial court erred in weighing mental‑health evidence / need for formal bonding evaluation | Mother argued mental‑health incapacity is not an automatic bar and disputed conclusions; no authority cited | Trial court relied on expert psychiatric testimony and bonding evaluation; not required to order formal expert bonding evaluation beyond record evidence | Court held trial court reasonably credited experts; no abuse of discretion in relying on the record bonding assessment |
| Whether Mother waived appellate claim by failing to develop legal argument | Mother largely recited facts and contested credibility but offered minimal legal authority | CYS noted Mother’s brief lacked supporting legal citations and failed to link facts to law | Court found Mother’s appellate argument waived for failure to develop with authority, and alternatively rejected it on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope and standard of review in parental‑rights termination appeals)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for proving § 2511(a)(1) — sustained conduct and three‑part inquiry)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one subsection of § 2511(a))
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings; appellate review limits)
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (importance of evaluating parent‑child bond for § 2511(b))
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court not required to order formal expert bonding evaluation)