In re Adoption of M.A.B., PICS Case No. 17-1128 (Pa. Super. June 29, 2017) Dubow, J. (31 pages).
The trial court erred in denying a petition to terminate mother and father's parental rights to two special needs children based on a "reasonable probability" that the causes and conditions which led to placement could be remedied. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
July 28, 2017 at 02:15 PM
3 minute read
Parental Rights • Termination • Burden of Proof
In re Adoption of M.A.B., PICS Case No. 17-1128 (Pa. Super. June 29, 2017) Dubow, J. (31 pages).
The trial court erred in denying a petition to terminate mother and father's parental rights to two special needs children based on a “reasonable probability” that the causes and conditions which led to placement could be remedied. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Mother and father are the natural parents of two special needs children. Both parents struggled with substance abuse, causing family services to become involved. The Erie County Office of Children and Youth (Erie OCY) petitioned to terminate parental rights on Aug 26, 2015. The trial court denied the petitions, concluding that Erie OCY had not met its burden under any subsection of 23 Pa.C.S. §25 (a), which delineates the grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights, with respect to either mother or father. Since the children were adjudicated dependent, the parents had remained crime-free and cooperative with service providers, the court observed. Erie OCY and the two minor children appealed from the order denying the petition to terminate parental rights. They argued that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by concluding that Erie OCY had not established by clear and convincing evidence grounds for termination. The appellate court noted that the grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2), due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied, are not limited to affirmative misconduct. Rather, the grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. The trial court stated that mother had demonstrated progress in every area that was assessed, including readiness for reunification. While mother struggled with certain issues and was not yet ready to be a sole caregiver, “the record establishes there was a reasonable probability the causes and conditions which led to placement could be remedied,” the trial court stated. This statement was not supported by the record and ignored the Adoption Act's clear delineation of what must be shown at a termination proceeding, the appellate court concluded. “The issue is not whether evidence proved that sometime in the future mother will be able to resolve her issues,” the court stated.” The cause of the children's placement was mother's mental health and substance abuse. While mother minimally complied with goals set for her at first, her compliance dropped off over time. By the time Erie OCY filed the termination petition, mother had gone off her medications without supervision, failed to show up for court-ordered urinalyses and obtained a prescription for Suboxone, the very opioid that led to her children's placement. Due to the children's special needs and mother's refusal to address her significant mental health and substance abuse issues with consistency, mother would be unable to meet the children's needs in a safe, healthy manner. Moreover, while father was no longer incarcerated and worked two jobs, he had not attended therapy consistently, missed urinalysis, tested positive for marijuana and continued to live with mother, who failed to address her mental health and substance abuse issues. Father refused to put his children's needs ahead of mother's and his own needs by obtaining housing without mother. However, the court also considered Section 2511(b), which requires consideration of intangibles such as love, comfort, security and stability. Since the trial court failed to adequately address these issue, the court remanded for further proceedings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readState Supreme Court Clarifies Special Immigrant Juvenile Practice in Pa.
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250