In the Interest of: S.J.M-B., a Minor
In the Interest of: S.J.M-B., a Minor No. 2463 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Children (b. 2006 and 2008) were removed in July 2014 after reports and hospital findings of physical abuse and neglect while in mother's care; DHS obtained custody and placed them with kin/foster resources.
- Father (D.M.) was incarcerated since April 2013 on drug-related convictions; earliest release date was July 25, 2019.
- DHS developed a Single Case Plan for Father requiring phone/written contact and supervised prison visits; Father largely did not participate in SCP meetings and had only limited contact with children (first confirmed contact in May 2016).
- At permanency reviews, DHS continued services and explored visitation; court ordered one prison visit later modified to telephone/mail; therapist recommended limited contact.
- DHS filed petitions (July 7, 2016) to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b) and to change goal to adoption; trial court terminated Father's rights on July 25, 2016; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was proper (failure to perform parental duties/settled purpose) | Father asserted he did not relinquish rights, met FSP goal of maintaining contact, completed prison programs, and tried to arrange visits/calls | DHS/court relied on caseworker testimony showing Father failed FSP objectives, had minimal contact until May 2016, and made no sustained efforts to maintain parental role | Affirmed — §2511(a)(1) satisfied (Father failed to perform parental duties for 6+ months) |
| Whether §2511(a)(2) termination was proper (incapacity/neglect causing lack of essential parental care) | Father claimed remedial steps (programs) and present capacity to parent | DHS/court found repeated incapacity and lack of corrective action while children needed stable care | Affirmed — court found grounds under §2511(a)(2) supported by record |
| Whether termination would violate §2511(b) (children's best interests and parent-child bond) | Father argued there was an existing bond from pre-incarceration and ongoing phone/letter contact; no evidence showed harm from severance | DHS/court presented therapist/caseworker testimony that children had minimal contact, were not bonded to Father, and would not suffer irreparable harm if rights severed | Affirmed — §2511(b) satisfied (no meaningful bond; termination in children’s best interests) |
| Challenge to goal change to adoption | Father did not brief this issue on appeal | — | Waived; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and termination analysis under §2511)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration does not excuse parental duties; parental responsibilities continue)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court findings and credibility in dependency/termination matters)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus on child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b))
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental inaction during child's life can evidence settled purpose to relinquish rights)