In the Interest of: S.Q.L., a Minor, In the Interest of: S.Q.L., a Minor No. 3238 EDA 2016

Background

Children (A.L., b.2007; S.Q.L., b.2009) adjudicated dependent and placed in DHS custody April 9, 2014 after repeated CPS/GPS reports about unsafe, unsanitary housing, lack of utilities, truancy, and caregiver incapacity.
Mother had SCP objectives: maintain housing and income, complete parenting classes, obtain a parenting capacity evaluation (PCE), and attend individual mental-health therapy; she completed some tasks (housing, parenting classes) but did not document income or therapy.
A December 2014 PCE concluded Mother lacked capacity to provide safety and permanency, showed denial/minimization of removal causes, limited financial plan, and need for individual therapy.
DHS filed petitions (June 2016) to change permanency goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate parental rights; combined hearings occurred June 27 and September 14, 2016.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) and changed goal to adoption; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was an abuse of discretion	Mother: Court failed to consider the totality under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f); she completed SCP goals in 2015 and was making mental-health progress	DHS/Trial Ct: Mother remained unable/unwilling to remediate barriers (no therapy documentation, lack of income proof, coaching children, plan to have children adopted by a sex offender); goal change serves children’s best interests	Affirmed — goal change to adoption was proper and in children’s best interests
Whether clear-and-convincing proof supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (failure to remedy)	Mother: Record insufficient; caseworker testimony and evidentiary rulings were inadequate to prove failure to rehabilitate	DHS/Trial Ct: PCE and caseworker testimony established repeated incapacity, children lacked essential parental care, and Mother would not remedy causes (no therapy, denial/minimization, financial instability, supervised visits for coaching)	Affirmed — § 2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear-and-convincing evidence
Whether termination met § 2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare; bond)	Mother: (briefly raised) termination would be premature given progress; disputes court’s evidentiary rulings	DHS/Trial Ct: Visits were supervised due to coaching; evaluator and caseworker testified no healthy parental bond and no irreparable harm from severance; stability and permanency favored adoption	Affirmed — termination under § 2511(b) appropriate; Mother waived detailed challenge but merits lacking
Whether trial court abused discretion in evidentiary rulings and credibility findings	Mother: Evidentiary rulings limited cross‑examination and biased the record; trial court misweighed her progress	DHS/Trial Ct: Evidentiary rulings within discretion; court credited witness testimony and PCE; credibility findings entitled to deference	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings or credibility determinations

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court fact/credibility findings in TPR cases)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standards of review and parental-rights termination principles)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court and best-interest analysis)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s discretion on credibility and evidence)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports trial court)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated test under § 2511 and focus on parental conduct then child’s needs)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bond analysis and best-interest factors under § 2511(b))
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (importance of weighing safety, stability, and continuity in § 2511(b) analysis)