In the Interest of: Z.E.W.-C., a Minor
1842 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Children (born 2008 and 2011) were removed after DHS found deplorable home conditions, pest infestation, truancy, missed medical care, and allegations that Mother sold food stamps; children were adjudicated dependent in Feb. 2013 and placed in foster care.
- Mother failed to cooperate with DHS initially, denied concerns, and at times denied access to the home; IHPS and private investigator involvement preceded removal.
- Mother had multiple other children; a Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE) by Dr. Erica Williams found Mother lacked insight, exhibited depressive symptoms, and could not provide safe permanency without substantial mental-health treatment.
- Mother did not comply with recommended mental-health treatment or all Family Service Plan (FSP) objectives and had minimal contact with the caseworker and children for extended periods.
- Children formed primary parental bonds with their foster mother, who provided stability, met medical/educational needs, participated in services, and wished to adopt; DHS petitioned to terminate Mother’s rights and change the goal to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) was proper | Mother claims she complied with FSP for months before petition and remedied conditions | DHS/trial court: Mother failed to remedy chronic mental-health, parenting-capacity deficits and did not complete required treatment or FSP goals | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence of repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care and inability/willingness to remedy |
| Whether termination under other § 2511(a) subsections (a)(1),(5),(8) was erroneous | Mother generally contests termination under listed subsections as unsupported | DHS relied on dependency history, noncooperation, and expert PCE showing incapacity | Court focused on (a)(2) and (b) and affirmed termination (any one subsection suffices) |
| Whether termination met the § 2511(b) best-interest standard | Mother argues DHS witness testified to a bond, so termination is not in children’s best interests | DHS/trial ct: primary bond is with foster mother; children are safe, stable, not harmed by termination; adoption offers permanency | Affirmed: termination meets § 2511(b); no bonding evidence that would make severance harmful |
| Whether goal change to adoption was improper | Mother repeats that she met FSP goals so goal change unnecessary | DHS/trial ct: reunification inappropriate given Mother’s unresolved deficits; adoption provides permanency | Affirmed: court permissibly changed goal to adoption |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court credibility in dependency/TPR cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard that appellate court accepts trial court factual findings if supported)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required under § 2511(a)(2))
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§ 2511(b) focuses on child’s needs; bonds considered but not dispositive)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone insufficient to defeat termination where neglect/abuse present)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bonding evaluation not required; caseworkers’ testimony may suffice)