In the Matter of: M.P., Appeal of: S.M.
204 A.3d 976
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Children (born 2011 and 2013) were removed in Nov. 2016 after Mother delivered a stillborn and reports of prenatal drug use; children placed with maternal kin.
- Children adjudicated dependent Jan. 18, 2017; Mother repeatedly failed to comply with service plan objectives (drug treatment, housing, employment, visitation).
- Mother had extensive positive drug screens (26 of 31), was discharged from a program for nonattendance, accrued new criminal charges, and lived in a halfway house unsuitable for reunification.
- Mother’s visits were sporadic and at times disruptive (including during M.P.’s leukemia hospitalization); Agency obtained court orders for medical-consent and to regulate visits.
- Agency petitioned April 26, 2018 to terminate parental rights and change permanency goal to adoption; trial court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) and changed goal to adoption after a July 19, 2018 hearing.
- Mother appealed but filed combined notices of appeal across multiple dockets/issues; court addressed merits but the opinion emphasizes Walker requires separate notices for separate dockets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in changing permanency goal to adoption | Mother: Agency failed to provide appropriate/reasonable reunification services and did not facilitate visits | Agency/Court: Mother was noncompliant, difficult to contact, had ongoing drug use and criminal charges; progress was recent/fragile | Goal change to adoption affirmed — court found services appropriate, minimal progress, and no timely remedy foreseeable |
| Whether termination of parental rights was supported under §2511(a)(2) | Mother: She was addressing drug, alcohol, and mental-health issues and had made progress | Agency/Court: Long history of addiction, repeated noncompliance, inability to provide stable home or employment, disrupted involvement in child’s medical care | Termination affirmed under §2511(a)(2) — clear and convincing evidence of repeated/continued incapacity and lack of remedy |
| Whether termination comported with §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare/bond) | Mother: Generally argued termination not in children’s best interests (no developed bond argument) | Agency/Court: Children have strong bond with kinship foster parents; Mother’s limited visits and disrupted communication show no detrimental bond loss if terminated | §2511(b) upheld — no evidence of a parental bond that would make severance detrimental; permanency with foster parents best meets children’s needs |
| Procedural: Whether Mother’s appeals complied with Walker/Pa.R.A.P. 341 | Mother filed separate notices per child but combined challenges (termination and goal change) across dockets | Court: Walker requires separate notices for issues arising on different dockets; failure mandates quashal for appeals filed after June 1, 2018 | Court notes Walker compels separate notices and warns that failure results in quashal, but nevertheless addresses merits here; admonition issued to litigants |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal for orders resolving issues on different dockets)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination decisions)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) and (b))
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental incapacity and needs/welfare/bond analysis under §2511)
- In Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1998) (elements required to prove §2511(a)(2))
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs indefinite delay for parental improvement)
- K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003) (prior practice permitting single notices of appeal for related issues across dockets contrasted with Walker)