In re RIS
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
36 A.3d 567 (2011)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2009, York County Children and Youth services (CYS) (plaintiff) filed a petition to change the placement goals of two minor children, RIS and AIS, from reunification to adoption. The petition also requested the court to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of the father, CS (defendant) and mother, KH. The children had been adjudicated as dependents and placed in foster care the previous year after CS was incarcerated with a two- to four-year sentence and KH requested emergency placement. The trial court held a hearing on the petition. During the hearing, CS presented evidence that he had complied with the goals of the reunification plan by remaining in contact with CYS, completing therapeutic programs, maintaining good prison conduct, and remaining in contact with the children during his incarceration by sending cards and participating in a parent-child reading program. CS also presented evidence that he had tried to request visitation with the children and had tried to call the children, but both efforts were unsuccessful. The trial court denied the goal change and the involuntary termination of CS’s parental rights. CYS appealed. The superior court reversed the trial court. The superior court acknowledged that although incarceration alone is not a proper basis to terminate parental rights, in this case, CS’s incarceration was evidence of parental incapacity. CS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCaffery, J.)
Concurrence (Baer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.