In the Interest of: S.J. a/k/a S.M., a Minor
In the Interest of: S.J. a/k/a S.M., a Minor No. 3148 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 20, 2017Background
- Child (born Dec. 2013) removed at birth after neonatal drug exposure; Monroe County CYS obtained custody and placed the child with foster parents (pre‑adoptive resource).
- Mother (J.M.) had ongoing substance‑abuse issues, multiple arrests and incarcerations before and after Child’s birth, with positive drug tests through 2016 and periods of absconding from supervision.
- CYS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(8) and (b) on July 28, 2016; hearing held Sept. 1, 2016; Mother presented no evidence.
- The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on Sept. 2, 2016; Mother appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed on March 20, 2017.
- The Superior Court based its decision on § 2511(a)(8) (12‑month removal, continuing conditions, best interests) and § 2511(b) (child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs), finding the conditions that led to removal (mother’s addiction, instability) continued and termination served the child’s needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYS/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence showed Mother abandoned or failed in parental duties (§ 2511(a) generally) | Mother argued she remedied many conditions and did not evidence settled purpose to relinquish parental claim | CYS relied on Mother’s continued drug use, arrests, incarcerations, absconding, and failure to maintain contact or remediate conditions | Not reached as dispositive; Superior Court affirmed termination on § 2511(a)(8) and (b) grounds |
| Whether the conditions leading to removal (mother’s substance abuse) continued (§ 2511(a)(8)) | Mother contended her drug problem did not continue and she had made progress; too early to terminate given incarceration unknown length | CYS showed repeated positive tests, multiple arrests, ongoing probation violations, and recent absconding and incarceration | Held: Conditions continued; § 2511(a)(8) satisfied and reunification not imminent |
| Whether termination would best serve the child’s needs and welfare under § 2511(a)(8) | Mother argued she maintained a bond and future reunification might be possible after sentencing/recovery | CYS/ct. emphasized child’s stability in a pre‑adoptive foster home, absence of mother’s contact for months, and child’s bond with foster family | Held: Termination would best serve child’s needs; § 2511(a)(8) satisfied |
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) — child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs and bond analysis | Mother argued a parental bond existed and termination would harm the child | CYS/ct. noted no evidence of parent‑child bond, child bonded with foster mother, need for permanence and stability | Held: § 2511(b) satisfied; termination in child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (deference to trial court credibility findings; consider child’s need for timely permanency)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parent conduct then child’s best interests)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court may affirm if any § 2511(a) ground is proven)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(8))
- In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§ 2511(a)(8) imposes 12‑month period to remedy conditions)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (focus on whether conditions are remedied and reunification is imminent)
- In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (distinguishing § 2511(a)(8) and § 2511(b) analyses)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangible factors in best‑interest analysis: love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of bond exists, court may infer none)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court may emphasize child safety and continuity of foster relationships in § 2511(b) analysis)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (courts should consider pre‑adoptive placement and bond with foster parents)