In theInterest of:J.H., B.H. & J.G.,Minor Children
In theInterest of:J.H., B.H. & J.G.,Minor Children No. 1018 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- DHS intervened after reports (2012–2013): J.H. (wheelchair-bound, cerebral palsy, deafness) and B.H. were adjudicated dependent in 2012; J.G. was born in 2013 with positive cocaine tests and was placed in a pre‑adoptive home.
- DHS filed petitions (Oct. 2013) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to B.H., J.H., and J.G. under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
- The trial court held a multi‑day hearing (Aug. 2014–Feb. 2016) with testimony from a social worker, a DHS caseworker, and a forensic/clinical psychologist who performed a Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE).
- PCE and DHS witnesses found Father lacked capacity for safety/permanency, had inconsistent insight/judgment, refused court‑ordered mental health treatment, and did not complete FSP goals (housing, mental health, anger management, consistent visitation).
- The children were bonded primarily to foster/kinship caregivers: B.H. and J.G. with a kinship pre‑adoptive home; J.H. with a foster parent who is a registered nurse. Visits never progressed beyond supervised.
- The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under §§ 2511(a)(2) and (b); Father appealed. The Superior Court affirmed on March 27, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity/neglect causing lack of essential parental care and not remediable) | Father: he complied with FSP except mental health, completed PCE evaluation, resolved underlying issues, and termination is improper | DHS/Trial Court: Father failed to complete FSP goals (no appropriate housing, refused mental health, irregular visits, never progressed from supervised visits); PCE opined Father lacks capacity for safety/permanency | Held: Affirmed. Competent evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(2). |
| Whether termination met §2511(b) (best interests: developmental, physical, emotional needs and welfare) | Father: ongoing visitation and parental love mean termination would harm children’s bond and welfare | DHS/Trial Court: Children primarily bonded to foster/kinship caregivers; some children rejected contact with biological parents; termination would not cause irreparable harm and would further permanency | Held: Affirmed. Termination serves children’s needs and welfare under §2511(b). |
| Whether changing children’s permanency goal to adoption was proper | Father: (not preserved in Rule 1925 statement) argued goal change was improper | DHS/Trial Court: Goal change supported by length of placement, children’s bonds with current caregivers, and lack of parental remediation | Held: Issue waived for inadequate preservation; alternatively, no abuse of discretion — goal change to adoption was appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate courts must defer to trial judges on fact‑intensive parental‑rights decisions)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility and weight determinations)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (focus of §2511(b) is child’s needs; intangibles like love, comfort, security are relevant)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental affection alone does not preclude termination)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold pending parental improvement)
- In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights convert to child’s right to permanency when duties are unmet)
- In re B.S., 861 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for permanency goal changes)
- In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court’s role in credibility and fact finding at permanency hearings)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (statutory factors and child’s best interests govern goal selection)