190 A.3d 618
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Child (born July 2016) was drug-exposed at birth, hospitalized ~3 months, and placed in DHS custody in October 2016; adjudicated dependent and placed with goal of reunification.
- Father attended three supervised visits after discharge, then was incarcerated for ~2 months; after release he entered a 90-day self‑help program, obtained full‑time employment, and attended two additional supervised visits.
- Father was referred to parenting/housing services (ARC) but his ARC case was closed for non‑participation; Father contends scheduling conflicts with his work prevented consistent participation and visits.
- DHS filed petitions (April 19, 2017) to terminate parental rights (23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8),(b)) and to change the permanency goal to adoption; termination hearing occurred August 4, 2017 (Child in placement ≈10 months).
- Trial court orally granted termination under § 2511(a)(1) and (2) at the hearing and later entered an order listing (a)(1),(2),(5),(8),(b); court also changed Child’s goal to adoption. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS/Appellee Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under § 2511(a)(1) and (2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Father: DHS filed termination early (≈6 months after placement); DHS failed to provide visits/services compatible with his work schedule; his conduct did not show settled abandonment or incurable incapacity | DHS: Father failed to remedy conditions that led to placement; grounds for termination shown | Vacated — court abused discretion under § 2511(a)(1) and (2); Father’s explanation and scheduling conflicts required consideration and evidence did not show incapacity cannot be remedied |
| Whether termination under § 2511(a)(5) and (8) was warranted | Father: not argued at hearing; petition was brought but DHS proceeded only under (a)(1) and (2) | DHS: initially pleaded those grounds but did not press them at hearing | Vacated to extent termination was based on (a)(5) and (a)(8); DHS did not pursue those subsections at trial |
| Whether trial court gave primary consideration to Child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs under § 2511(b) | Father: termination would harm reunification prospects; bond and needs not fully evaluated; DHS did not present evidence about Child’s daily medical needs | DHS: argued best interests supported termination (as presented at trial) | Court did not reach § 2511(b) because it found error in (a); remanded — no affirmative § 2511(b) ruling upheld |
| Whether goal change to adoption was proper under Juvenile Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 6351) | Father: goal change premature (Child in placement ~10 months < statutory 15‑22 months trigger); DHS/agency failed to set a likely achievement date or adequately accommodate Father’s schedule | DHS: sought goal change as in Child’s best interest | Vacated — court abused discretion; goal change order reversed and case remanded to maintain reunification goal and for further permanency reviews |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires clear and convincing evidence before parental rights are terminated)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (standard for reviewing permanency‑goal decisions)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (appellate review standard in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (three‑part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1))
- In re N.M.B., 856 A.2d 847 (courts must consider totality of circumstances, not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
- In the Interest of D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (agency service failures do not automatically bar termination when statutory grounds and best interests otherwise established)