Term. of Par. Rights to J.R.E., Appeal of D.E.
218 A.3d 920
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Child born 2006; as an infant in Florida diagnosed with injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome; Mother admitted her paramour caused the injuries and Child was removed from her care.
- Mother later had supervised then unsupervised visits; visitation ended after an unapproved person (believed abuser) was found in Mother’s home in 2008; Child was placed with Father in Pennsylvania in August 2008 and has remained with Father and his wife (K.J.) since.
- Since Father obtained custody, Mother had only sporadic, mostly indirect contact; Father frequently refused communications and blocked in-person contact, including barring Mother when she traveled in 2017 to see Child.
- Father filed to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) in March 2018 and concurrently sought adoption by K.J.; an attorney-guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended termination; trial court granted termination under § 2511(a)(1) and relied on custody best‑interest factors from 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a).
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion: it failed to analyze Mother’s explanations and improperly used § 5328(a) custody factors instead of the mandatory § 2511(b) bond/welfare analysis; the GAL did not represent the child’s legal interests as required under In re Adoption of L.B.M.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (abandonment/failure to perform parental duties for 6+ months) | Mother had minimal contact (sporadic calls, packages, blocked visits); this shows failure to perform duties and a settled purpose of relinquishment | Lack of contact was substantially due to Father’s refusal to cooperate and bar to contact; Mother made efforts to contact and seek custody; she had plans for reunification | Reversed: petitioner did not meet burden; trial court failed to assess Mother’s explanations and improperly ignored Father's role in obstructing contact, so § 2511(a)(1) finding was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (child's developmental, physical, emotional needs and welfare; bond analysis) and whether child had counsel for legal interests | GAL recommended termination as in child's best interests; trial court found reintroduction of Mother would be disruptive and maintained status quo under custody factors | Mother argued termination not shown; record lacked exploration of bonds and long‑term effects; child lacked counsel to assert legal interests (identity/medical issues, future adoption consent) | Reversed: trial court erred by applying § 5328(a) custody factors instead of mandatory § 2511(b) analysis; also child was deprived of counsel to protect legal interests per L.B.M., so record insufficient to support termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard and deference to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental duty to maintain communication; abandonment standard)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect under § 2511(b))
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for proving abandonment under § 2511(a)(1))
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs and welfare include love, comfort, security, stability)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (necessity of examining emotional bond under § 2511(b))
- In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (child's needs and welfare require consideration of parent‑child emotional bond)
- In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (requirement to appoint counsel to represent a child's legal interests in contested involuntary termination)
- In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 184 A.3d 585 (Pa. Super. 2018) (attorney must attempt to ascertain and advocate the child's legal interests distinct from best interests)