In the Interest of: S.D.R., a Minor
3225 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Child S.D.R., born Sept. 2012, was removed from maternal grandmother’s care and placed in foster care after DHS learned Mother had been arrested in Georgia and a missing person/kidnap report was filed. DHS obtained protective custody on Jan. 9, 2015; child was adjudicated dependent Jan. 22, 2015.
- The court ordered a Single Case Plan (SCP) requiring Mother to complete drug/alcohol treatment, parenting classes and evaluation, anger/domestic-violence counseling, and supervised visitation; DHS held periodic permanency reviews.
- By the February 2016 review, Mother was in a New York shelter and receiving treatment, but she failed to complete any SCP objectives before the termination petition was filed.
- DHS filed an involuntary termination petition under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) on Aug. 1, 2016; hearing held Sept. 8, 2016. Mother did not testify; counsel stipulated to caseworker facts.
- Evidence showed Mother attended only 2 of 18 supervised visits since May 2016, with last visit more than three months before the hearing; child had been in placement ~21 months and was in a pre‑adoptive home and bonded to foster mother.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under § 2511(a)(1) and (b); Superior Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination satisfied § 2511(a)(1) (six‑month failure to perform parental duties) | Mother argued she was visiting and working on treatment, so DHS did not prove failure to perform duties | Mother failed to complete any SCP objectives and attended only 2 of 18 recent supervised visits; conduct satisfied § 2511(a)(1) | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of failure/refusal to perform parental duties over required period |
| Whether termination satisfied § 2511(b) (child’s needs/welfare and bond analysis) | Mother argued termination would not serve child’s welfare | Child is in a pre‑adoptive home, views foster mother as parent, and there was no evidence of a bond with Mother | Affirmed: terminating rights serves the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
| Whether DHS failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts | Mother asserted DHS did not make reasonable efforts before petitioning | DHS provided reunification efforts over ~21 months; Court noted reunification efforts are not a prerequisite to termination under D.C.D. | Rejected Mother’s claim; DHS efforts were adequate and termination permissible regardless |
| Whether any other § 2511(a) subsections required separate analysis (a)(2),(5),(8) | Mother challenged these grounds on appeal | Court found disposition could be upheld on (a)(1) and (b) alone | Court declined to address other subsections because (a)(1) and (b) suffice to affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard for bond analysis and urgency to secure permanency for children)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (§ 2511(a)(1) requires either settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (definition and proof standards for conduct under § 2511(a)(1))
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of a parent-child bond exists, court may infer none for § 2511(b) analysis)
- In the Interest of D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (clarified that lack of agency reasonable efforts does not bar termination under § 2511)