In the Interest of: T.L.M. Jr., a Minor
1027 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Child T.L.M., Jr. (born Sept. 2006) was adjudicated dependent on Dec. 19, 2013 and has been in DHS custody since that date.
- DHS/Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) created a Single Case Plan for Mother requiring housing repairs, drug/alcohol treatment, mental-health treatment, and weekly visits; Mother failed to complete SCP objectives and had limited contact with CEU.
- Mother was unaware of and failed to address Child’s medical needs; Child has ADHD, OCD, and Reactive Attachment Disorder and is reported as more responsive in foster care.
- CUA witness testified Child is not bonded to Mother, foster parents meet Child’s needs, and termination would serve Child’s best interests.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), and found termination consistent with § 2511(b) (best interests); goal changed to adoption. Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) | Termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Mother failed to remedy conditions, did not complete services, and conduct met statutory grounds for termination | Affirmed: sufficient competent evidence to terminate under §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) |
| Whether court gave primary consideration to Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs per §2511(b) | Court failed to adequately consider harm of severing bond | CUA testimony and record show lack of bond and that adoption would best serve Child’s needs | Affirmed: court properly considered §2511(b) and found termination in Child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court in TPR cases)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (satisfaction of any one §2511(a) subsection plus §2511(b) is sufficient for termination)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (bifurcated §2511(a) then §2511(b) analysis and bond considerations)
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parents who cannot/will not meet minimum care requirements may be unfit)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty is affirmative; child’s right to proper parenting can outweigh parental rights)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond analysis may rely on social worker testimony; no formal bonding evaluation required)