In the Interest of: S.T.R.R., a Minor
In the Interest of: S.T.R.R., a Minor No. 2867 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 8, 2017Background
- Child born March 2014; mother tested positive for drugs at birth and had ongoing substance abuse and safety-plan violations. DHS took Child into protective custody and adjudicated dependency in August 2014.
- Father and Mother lived together when Child entered care. DHS/Community Umbrella Organization (CUA) created Single Case Plans (SCPs) for both parents; Father completed many SCP objectives (parenting, domestic violence classes, housing, consistent visits).
- In January 2016 CUA erroneously reunified Child with Father without court/Child Advocate approval. During that reunification Father permitted Mother to have unsupervised contact with Child, in violation of a court-ordered Safety Plan; Mother appeared to be under the influence.
- Child was removed from Father and placed with maternal aunt and uncle (foster parents), where Child had lived about two years and was closely bonded to them.
- DHS filed an involuntary termination petition April 28, 2016 seeking termination of Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) and a goal change to adoption; trial court terminated Father’s rights; Father timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination is supported (parental duties/settled intent) | Father: He complied with SCPs and never intended to relinquish rights; denies permitting Mother unsupervised contact; contends safety-plan violation isn’t proof of intent to relinquish or failure to parent. | Father knowingly violated the Safety Plan by allowing Mother unsupervised contact while Mother appeared impaired; this demonstrated failure to protect Child and showed Father prioritized Mother over Child’s safety. | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1): clear and convincing evidence Father failed to perform parental duties (safety breach/credibility findings). |
| Whether §2511(a)(8) basis should apply (conditions continue) | Father did not press this on appeal (court need not decide). | Trial court found continuing risk and prioritized Child’s stability with foster parents. | Not addressed on appeal; court relied on §2511(a)(1) and §2511(b). |
| Whether §2511(b) (best interests/bond) supports termination | Father: Claims an emotional bond with Child; argues agency failures limited his ability to strengthen bond. | Child lacks a positive parent/child bond with Father; Child is closely bonded to foster parents who provide stability; termination would serve Child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs. | Court affirmed §2511(b): credible evidence showed no beneficial parental bond and termination favored Child’s interests and adoption by foster parents. |
| Whether trial court erred by relying on hearsay from earlier permanency hearing | Father: Challenges admissibility/verification of testimony about safety-plan violation at Jan. 29, 2016 hearing. | Trial court: credibility determinations were proper; absence of transcript waived appellate review of that challenge. | Court rejected argument: credibility findings supported by record; failure to include prior transcript in certified record waived review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review in termination cases; deference to trial court findings)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (fact-finder may accept/reject testimony and resolve conflicts)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any one valid subsection of §2511(a))
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear-and-convincing burden on petitioner)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for proving §2511(a)(1))
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative performance and reasonable firmness)
- Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (appellant’s failure to include record materials waives review)
- In re: Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§2511(b) focuses on child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles like love, comfort, security relevant to needs-and-welfare inquiry)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where evidence shows no parent-child bond, court may infer none exists)