In the Interest of: Z.I.B., a Minor
In the Interest of: Z.I.B., a Minor No. 2234 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Children (born 2004, 2008, 2009) were removed from Mother’s care in June 2013 after DHS found truancy and learned Mother had been evicted; children were placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent.
- DHS developed a reunification plan requiring housing, supervised visitation, parenting-capacity evaluation, mental-health treatment, and drug/alcohol assessment and monitoring (CEU/STOP).
- Mother completed some steps (parenting-capacity evaluation, some screens, obtained employment/housing) but repeatedly missed appointments, failed to complete drug/alcohol and mental-health treatment, and tested positive for marijuana during the dependency.
- Visitation was supervised since December 2014 due to Mother’s inappropriate behavior; children were in foster placements (two together, one separate) since January 2015.
- DHS petitioned (May 2016) to terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and § 2511(b), and to change permanency goal to adoption. A combined hearing was held June 8, 2016; trial court terminated rights and changed goal to adoption.
- Superior Court affirmed: it relied primarily on § 2511(a)(8) (12+ months removed, conditions continuing, termination in child’s best interests) and § 2511(b) (needs/welfare). Mother’s challenge to unauthenticated drug screens was found waived.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination met 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) (esp. (a)(8)) | Mother argued she substantially complied with FSP goals (housing, parenting eval, some treatment/screens) and thus DHS failed to prove grounds for termination | DHS argued children had been out of home >12 months, Mother failed to complete key goals (drug/mental-health treatment, CEU noncompliance), and safety/permanency remained unresolved | Affirmed under § 2511(a)(8): children removed >12 months, conditions persisted despite efforts, termination served children’s needs/welfare |
| Whether termination complied with § 2511(b) (children's needs/welfare) | Mother argued the court ignored emotional bond with Mother and the siblings’ relationship; termination would harm children | DHS/CUA noted children’s primary parental relationships were with foster parents, foster parents met daily needs, and case manager had safety concerns about reunification | Affirmed: court found termination served developmental, physical, emotional needs; no detrimental effect shown that outweighed need for permanence |
| Whether permanency goal change to adoption was appropriate | Mother argued goal change ignored bonds and would separate siblings for adoption | DHS argued Mother’s noncompliance and ongoing safety concerns made adoption the best path to permanence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; goal change to adoption was in children’s best interests under § 6351 factors |
| Whether trial court improperly relied on unauthenticated drug-screen evidence | Mother argued drug screens were unauthenticated and should not support termination/goal change | DHS pointed to CEU reports and test results in the record; trial court relied on CEU progress reports and evaluator testimony | Issue waived on appeal for failure to object below; Superior Court did not consider it on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may believe all, part, or none of evidence; credibility determinations afforded deference)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate court will affirm if competent evidence supports trial court despite possible contrary record)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511 analysis: first parent conduct under (a), then child’s needs/welfare under (b))
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (relevant inquiry for § 2511(a)(8) is whether conditions leading to removal have been remedied and reunification is imminent)
- In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (agency must make reasonable good-faith efforts over a realistic period before denying reunification)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (court cannot hold child’s life in abeyance for parent’s progress; parent’s post-petition efforts have limited weight under § 2511(b))
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) factors include safety, stability, and the child’s relationship with foster parents; bonding analysis is one of several considerations)