## Facts

- C.S. (“Father”) was sentenced in June 2008 to two to four years’ imprisonment; minimum release was projected for June 2012 and maximum for June 2016.
- After Father’s incarceration and Mother’s request for emergency placement, the children (A.I.S., born 2007; R.I.S., born 2008) entered foster care and were adjudicated dependent in February 2009.
- The county agency developed a family service plan requiring Father to cooperate with planning, sign releases, maintain written contact with the agency, document completion of prison programs, and maintain good prison conduct.
- At a March 2010 hearing, evidence showed Father satisfied each plan goal, completed therapeutic prison programs, and had no prison misconduct.
- Father attempted to maintain a relationship with the children by sending monthly cards and participating in a prison program that provided the children with a video of Father reading to them.
- In December 2009, the agency filed petitions to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Father’s and Mother’s parental rights after identifying a pre-adoptive resource.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s incarceration, by itself or in the circumstances presented, can establish statutory grounds to terminate parental rights and justify changing the permanency goal to adoption.
2. Whether the intermediate appellate court improperly reweighed evidence and displaced the trial court’s supported factual findings regarding Father’s efforts and parental capacity while incarcerated.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s orders denying involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights and denying the goal change from reunification to adoption.
- The Court reaffirmed that a parent’s incarceration, standing alone, cannot constitute proper grounds for termination.
- The Court held the Superior Court failed to give required deference to the trial court’s fact-finding that Father complied with agency objectives and maintained contact to the extent possible.

## Legal Principles

- Incarceration is a relevant consideration in termination proceedings but is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to terminate parental rights.
- Termination requires proof of statutory grounds, including repeated and continued parental incapacity (or related conditions) that cannot or will not be remedied; incarceration must be evaluated in context with the parent’s conduct and efforts.
- Appellate review in termination matters is constrained: supported trial-court findings of fact and credibility determinations bind the appellate court, which may not substitute its judgment or reweigh evidence.
- A permanency goal change to adoption must rest on the governing statutory framework and the record; where a parent is making documented progress and the trial court’s findings are supported, an appellate court may not override the trial court’s determination.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Father’s imprisonment did not, without more, establish unremedied parental incapacity and that the Superior Court erred by reweighing the record; the Court therefore reinstated the trial court’s refusal to terminate Father’s parental rights or change the children’s goal from reunification to adoption.


In re R.I.S. & A.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011)