In the Interest of: S.E.E., a Minor
1779 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- Child (b. Oct 2011) lived primarily with Mother; Father had supervised visits which ceased after he missed visits and a court suspended visitation in Aug 2015. Mother later obtained sole legal and physical custody (Aug 2016).
- Mother and Stepfather (petitioners) filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) on Oct 24, 2016. Bifurcated TPR hearings occurred in March and May 2017.
- Father admitted missing visits, failing to pursue timely legal relief after suspension, but presented limited contact (gifts, appearance at an Aug 2016 family reunion) and testimony that he loved the Child.
- Trial court denied the termination petition, reasoning that custody orders and paternal relatives (especially paternal grandmother) were obstacles to Father’s contact and that the Child had bonds with paternal relatives; the court found terminating rights would cause irreparable emotional harm.
- Superior Court reversed: it concluded the record supported termination under § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties during the critical six-month period and overall inactivity) and that § 2511(b) favored termination given the weak recent bond to Father and the Child’s strong bond with Stepfather and paternal relatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Stepfather) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(1) grounds are met (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father abandoned duties for well over six months, made minimal financial gifts, did not maintain visitation or legal efforts to restore custody | Father cared, loved Child, made some contact (gifts, reunion), and custody orders impeded him | Reversed trial court: § 2511(a)(1) satisfied — Father failed to utilize available resources, did not reestablish visitation or legal claims during critical period |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) | Termination serves Child’s need for stability; Child bonded to Stepfather and paternal relatives would continue contact without Father’s parental rights | Termination would cause irreparable emotional harm by severing existing ties to Father/paternal family; orders blocked Father’s access | Reversed trial court: § 2511(b) favors termination — minimal recent parent–child bond to Father and strong, stable relationships with Stepfather/paternal family support termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court findings in TPR review)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and bond focus)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial court credibility determinations and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa.Super. 2008) (requirements for § 2511(a)(1) and post-abandonment contact)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa.Super. 2004) (parental duties defined as affirmative, continuing efforts)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa.Super. 2010) (bond analysis and that no formal bonding evaluation is required)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa.Super. 2012) (needs and welfare include intangibles: love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa.Super. 2000) (clear-and-convincing standard and parental duty guidance)