In the Interest of: X.E.A., a Minor
817 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Twins born August 2013; DHS took protective custody days after birth and children were adjudicated dependent while Mother was incarcerated.
- Mother released from prison in February 2015 and was ordered to comply with a Single Case Plan (SCP): weekly visits, CEU assessment, random drug screens, and ARC services for parenting, housing, employment, and mental health.
- Mother failed to complete the CEU assessment and drug/alcohol treatment, was discharged from ARC twice for noncompliance, missed most supervised visits, and lacked stable housing and employment.
- DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights in December 2016; termination hearings were held and the trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b) on February 2, 2017.
- Trial court relied on CUA/DHS testimony that the children had lived with and bonded to their foster mother since birth, Mother never had primary caretaking responsibility, and Mother lacked initiative to remedy conditions preventing reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS / Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence under §2511(a)(2) (repeated and continued incapacity/neglect) | Mother argued she made progress toward SCP goals (staying drug-free, housing, parenting) and sought reunification | DHS/Trial Court argued Mother failed to complete ordered services, missed visits, lacked housing/employment, and never cared for children full-time | Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied; Mother’s incapacity/inaction caused children to lack essential parental care and was unlikely to be remedied |
| Whether termination complied with §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare) | Mother claimed she provided love and comfort and that termination would harm the children | DHS/Trial Court pointed to strong bond between children and foster mother, children’s stability in foster home since birth, and minimal bond with Mother | Court held §2511(b) satisfied; terminating Mother’s rights was in children’s best interests and would not harm them |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court factfinding in dependency/termination matters)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and termination analysis)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for §2511(a)(2))
- In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity can include refusal and inability to perform duties)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental duty as affirmative performance tied to child’s needs)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under §2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, and stability)