In re A.D.

101 Citing cases

  1. In re A.G.-M.

    830 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 9, 2024)

    has explained that "incarceration will certainly impact a parent's capability of performing parental duties[] and may render a parent incapable of performing parental duties under subsection (a)(2)." In the Interest of K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465, 474 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (citation omitted); see also In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014). Our Supreme Court has stated that "incarceration is a factor, and indeed can be a determinative factor, in a court's conclusion that grounds for termination exist under [Section] 2511(a)(2) where the repeated and continued incapacity of a parent due to incarceration has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence and that the causes of the incapacity cannot or will not be remedied."

  2. In re M.J-M.S.

    108 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 27, 2024)

    Likewise, this Court has concluded that a no contact order is dispositive to incapacity, likening it to a long-term incarceration. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 896-897 (Pa. Super. 2014).

  3. In re A.N.D.

    No. J-A15012-24 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 13, 2024)

    In In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014), an analogous case, a father was ordered to have no-contact with the child that he abused and, in affirming the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), this Court concluded, "parental incapacity caused by a no-contact order is not only relevant to a court's conclusion that grounds for termination exist under § 2511(a)(2), but where, as here, the order is required to protect the children from further [] abuse at the hands of the excluded parent, we find that it is dispositive." Id.

  4. In re T.K.C.

    823 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 28, 2023)

    . Further, with respect to no-contact orders, in In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 896-97 (Pa. Super. 2014), this Court concluded that a no-contact order is relevant to parental "incapacity."

  5. Batterman v. Santo

    1371 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 9, 2023)

    Finally, we review a trial court's decision to deny a motion to recuse for an abuse of discretion. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 892 (Pa.Super. 2014). "We recognize that our trial judges are 'honorable, fair and competent,' and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially."

  6. In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights To D.M.S.

    376 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 17, 2022)

    The fact that a child has a bond with a parent does not preclude the termination of parental rights. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014). Rather, the trial court must examine the depth of the bond to determine whether the bond is so meaningful to the child that "its termination would destroy an existing, necessary, and beneficial relationship."

  7. In re Interest of D.A.C.N.

    J-S69017-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2020)

    (1) A parent's repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal must be shown; (2) such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal must be shown to have caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) it must be shown that the causes of the parent's incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied.See In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 896 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172, 173-174 (Pa. 1975)). The trial court found that DHS established clear and convincing evidence warranting the termination of Father's rights:

  8. In re M.D.O.

    J-S52016-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 21, 2019)

    While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the trial court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535-536 (Pa. Super. 2008). The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.

  9. In re P.B.

    J-S42018-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 16, 2019)

    While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the trial court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing In re K.K.R.S., 958 A.2d 529, 535-536 (Pa. Super. 2008)). The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.

  10. In re Interest of P.W.B.

    No. 447 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 13, 2019)

    While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of the section 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the trial court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535-536 (Pa. Super. 2008). The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.