In the Interest of: V.M.C., a Minor
In the Interest of: V.M.C., a Minor No. 3243 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Child born August 2014; DHS removed Child in January 2015 after reports that Mother and Father used crack cocaine while caring for Child and that maternal grandmother was an inappropriate caregiver. Child adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
- DHS developed a single case plan requiring Mother to complete parenting classes (ARC), maintain housing, engage in drug/alcohol treatment (GPHA) with twice-monthly drug screens, attend mental-health treatment, and participate in twice-weekly supervised visits.
- Mother inconsistently attended substance‑use treatment, was discharged twice for nonattendance, provided few drug screens, had positive tests for cocaine and benzodiazepines, and sometimes refused screens. She failed to provide treatment or medication records.
- Mother was evicted in June 2016 despite agency rent assistance; her only income is SSI for depression/anxiety. She attended only three group mental‑health sessions in 2016 and no individual therapy.
- Mother’s visits with Child were supervised and described as appropriate, but Mother missed multiple visits (including no‑call/no‑shows) and Child is bonded to foster parents, calling them “mom” and “dad.”
- DHS filed to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (Aug 2016); after an evidentiary hearing (Sept 12, 2016) the trial court terminated parental rights and changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption. Mother appealed; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (incapacity causing lack of essential care that cannot be remedied) | Mother argues she remedied conditions: completed parenting classes, re‑enrolled in treatment, secured acceptable housing, attends visits | DHS argued Mother continued substance use, failed drug screens/assessments, was evicted, missed treatment and visits, and cannot or will not remedy conditions | Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2): clear and convincing evidence Mother’s incapacity persisted and would not be remedied |
| Whether evidence showed a settled purpose to relinquish or refusal to perform parental duties (other §2511(a) grounds) | Mother contends appropriate visits and engagement show no refusal or abandonment | DHS emphasized missed visits, failure to follow through on objectives, and ongoing substance issues | Court found sufficient grounds under §2511(a) (focused on (a)(2)); alternative subsections not necessary to affirm |
| Whether terminating rights would harm Child or was contrary to Child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond and welfare analysis) | Mother argues bond exists (Child calls her “mom”) and termination would harm Child | DHS and trial court emphasized Child’s strong bond with foster parents, Child’s ease separating from Mother, safety concerns from Mother’s substance use and unstable housing | Court held termination met §2511(b): no meaningful parent–child bond and termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs |
| Whether changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption was erroneous | Mother challenges goal change on appeal | DHS relied on same evidence supporting termination and Child’s placement stability | Issue waived on appeal (mother’s brief failed to argue goal change); court affirmed goal change/order as waived |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.M.C., 140 A.3d 699 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standards of review for termination decisions)
- In re K.H.B., 107 A.3d 175 (Pa. Super. 2014) (burden of proof: clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of §2511(a))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2015) (focus of §2511(b) best‑interest analysis is child)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (psychological parenthood and child development considerations)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court may emphasize child safety in §2511(b) analysis)