In the Interest of: T.N.R., a Minor
848 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Child (T.N.R.) born premature with medical issues (cardiac defects, developmental delays); placed in DHS custody December 2014 and in kinship placement with maternal grandmother (MGM).
- Father (O.A.R.) was incarcerated before and throughout much of the case (about three years); DHS did not learn his whereabouts until April 2016; Father had not seen Child outside prison since she was three months old.
- Upon learning Father's location, DHS offered visitation and case contact; Father declined prison visits and did not maintain contact with the caseworker (CUA/APM) after an April 2016 visit.
- Father testified he had intermittent phone contact, claimed he was unaware Child was in DHS custody earlier, and expected imminent release; he provided no documentation of housing/employment plans and admitted he was unable to parent while incarcerated.
- Trial court found Father failed to complete permanency objectives, evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish parental duties, and that Child was bonded to MGM; terminated Father's rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) and changed goal to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties) | Father failed to perform parental duties for the relevant period: was incarcerated, did not make himself known earlier, declined visits and did not maintain contact after being located | Father said he was unaware Child was in DHS custody earlier, had some phone contact, and expected to be released soon so visitation in prison was unnecessary | Court: Held for DHS — clear and convincing evidence of failure/refusal to perform duties; termination under §2511(a)(1) proper |
| Whether DHS proved grounds under §2511(a)(2) (incapacity/refusal causing lack of essential parental care and not remediable) | Father's incarceration and failure to engage with services/visits meant he could not provide essential care; conditions causing removal remained unremedied | Father argued lack of notice, occasional contact, and anticipated release would remedy capacity issues | Court: Held for DHS — repeated/incapacity and inability to remedy justified termination under §2511(a)(2) |
| Whether termination was in Child's best interests under §2511(b) (bond/needs/welfare) | Child has no meaningful bond with Father, is bonded to MGM; removal from MGM would harm Child; adoption-promoting permanency is in Child's best interest | Father argued some phone contact and prior visits supported a relationship; release would allow parenting | Court: Held for DHS — no beneficial parental bond; termination would not destroy a necessary/beneficial relationship; §2511(b) satisfied; goal change to adoption proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of appellate review and framework for §2511 analysis)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (review limited to whether trial court decision supported by competent evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (scope of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (incarceration does not preclude termination where parent fails to use available resources)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (articulating requirements for incapacity ground under predecessor law to §2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under §2511(a)(8) / permanence considerations)
- In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (bonding analysis and factors under §2511(b))