In the Interest of: X.M., child
1516 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Child (born Nov. 2014) was removed to protective custody on Nov. 28, 2014 after DHS received reports that mother tested positive for PCP, had mental health issues, and domestic violence by Father; Child adjudicated dependent Dec. 10, 2014.
- Father told hospital at birth he could not care for Child; family contact was sporadic and DHS initially could not locate Father or reach him by phone.
- DHS set reunification objectives for Father (maintain caseworker contact, attend visits, complete domestic violence counseling); Father had very limited contact and attended few visits while Child remained in care.
- DHS filed a petition to change goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate parental rights on Jan. 12, 2016; trial occurred Jan. 28 and Apr. 11, 2016.
- Trial court found grounds to terminate Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); appellate court affirmed termination based on (a)(8) and (b).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | DHS’s / Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Father argued DHS’s outreach was confused, his compliance was adequate, and minimal objectives shouldn’t justify termination | DHS showed >12 months in care, conditions that led to removal persisted (domestic violence, lack of contact), and Father’s post-petition efforts are not considered | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports termination |
| Whether grounds under §2511(a)(8) were met | Father claimed progress and compliance; housing not shown inappropriate | DHS proved child removed >12 months, conditions remained, Father failed to maintain contact or meaningful engagement before petition | Affirmed: (a)(8) satisfied |
| Whether termination met the child’s best interests under §2511(b) | Father disputed lack of bonding analysis | DHS/caseworker testified child is bonded to foster parents, sibling relationship exists, and severing Father’s tie would not harm child | Affirmed: termination serves child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs |
| Constitutional due process / equal protection challenge | Father argued parental rights are fundamental and invoked Stanley/constitutional protections | DHS/trial court noted claim was not preserved below; appellant didn’t develop constitutional argument and showed no disparate treatment | Waived and meritless; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (interpretation and purpose of §2511(a)(8))
- In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (burden of proof: clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing standard)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any one subsection of §2511(a))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (post-petition remedial efforts generally not considered under §2511(b) and (a)(8))
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent’s duty to use available resources and exercise firmness to preserve relationship)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (attenuated bond where child in foster care most of life)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights give way when parent fails to fulfill duties)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s permanency cannot be indefinitely delayed)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (equal protection principle cited by appellant; court found claim waived and inapplicable)