Adotion of: L.A.C., Appeal of: A.G. and B.G. ( 2021 )

J-S03031-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.A.K. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.G. AND B.G. : No. 962 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered August 27, 2020
in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): No. 113 of 2019
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.L.K. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.G. AND B.G. : No. 963 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered August 27, 2020
in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): No. 114 of 2019
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: March 26, 2021
A.G. (Mother) and B.G. (Stepfather) (collectively, Petitioners) appeal
from the orders entered on August 27, 2020, which denied their petitions to
terminate involuntarily the parental rights of C.K. (Father). After review, we
reverse and remand.
Mother and Father are former spouses who separated in October 2015
and divorced in January 2017, due to Father’s debilitating alcoholism. N.T.,
7/22/2020, at 8-9, 71. They had two children together, L.A.K., born in
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03031-21
September 2012, and A.L.K., born in March 2015 (collectively, the Children).
Children reside with Mother. Significantly, it is undisputed that Father has not
had contact with the Children since January 2016. Id. at 9-14, 43, 48, 55,
63, 74, 87, 111-17, 120-25, 132-35. A March 2016 child custody order
provided that Father could exercise supervised partial physical custody of the
Children at his own expense, but he never exercised or requested custody
pursuant to that order. Id. at 10-12, 34-35, 41-42, 103.
Following her separation from Father, Mother began a relationship with
Stepfather. Id. at 17, 35. Mother married Stepfather in July 2019. Id. at 7.
Shortly thereafter, on October 23, 2019, Father filed a petition for modification
of the March 2016 custody order. Id. at 94-95. Petitioners filed petitions to
terminate involuntarily Father’s parental rights to the Children on October 31,
2019, proposing that Stepfather adopt the Children.1 A custody proceeding
ensued, resulting in an order that Father could not reenter the Children’s lives
pending the resolution of the termination proceeding. Id. at 38-39, 92-96;
Respondent’s Exhibit D (December 18, 2019 custody order).
____________________________________________
1 According to Petitioners, they had decided to seek involuntary termination
of Father’s parental rights by August 2019, but the process became delayed
due to L.A.K.’s participation in football. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 20, 56-57. They
also explained that Stepfather had a child from a prior relationship, and that
they filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of that child’s mother as
well, so that Mother could adopt that child. Id. at 21, 25-26, 57. They
maintained that the child’s mother was difficult to locate and serve, which
further delayed the process of seeking termination as to Father. Id. at 21,
48, 57.
-2-
J-S03031-21
The orphans’ court conducted a hearing on the termination petitions on
July 22, 2020, during which Petitioners, Father, and C.K. (Paternal
Grandmother) testified.2 In relevant part, Petitioners detailed Father’s failure
to contact the Children after January 2016, testifying that he did not see the
Children in person, send letters, or call them on the phone. N.T., 7/22/2020,
at 9-14, 43, 48, 55, 63. To Petitioners’ knowledge, Father did not even try to
contact the Children prior to filing his petition for modification of custody. Id.
Petitioners maintained that L.A.K. had only a vague recollection of Father, and
that A.L.K. did not remember Father at all. Id. at 22-23, 58. In contrast,
they reported that the Children view Stepfather as the sole paternal figure in
their lives and refer to him as their father. Id. at 22-25, 55-56, 59.
Father acknowledged that he had not had contact with the Children since
January 2016, and that he had not attempted to contact the Children. Id. at
74, 87, 111-17, 120-25, 132-35. Father offered various explanations for this
failure, stating first that he did not attempt to call the Children on the phone
because Mother “wouldn’t have addressed my calls anyway.” Id. at 74, 114-
15. Father next stated that he did not attempt to contact the Children because
he did not want to traumatize them by entering and exiting their lives due to
his relapses, and that he wanted to achieve a year of sobriety before reaching
out. Id. at 87-88, 115-17, 120-25, 132-34. He asserted that he became
____________________________________________
2 The orphans’ court appointed legal counsel and a guardian ad litem (GAL) to
represent the Children at the hearing.
-3-
J-S03031-21
sober in October 2018 and filed his petition for modification of custody a year
later, in October 2019. Id. at 75, 80, 94-95, 106. Finally, Father maintained
that his alcoholism was financially devastating, and that he could not afford
the cost of supervised partial physical custody of the Children, or even the
cost of sending them a greeting card. Id. at 103-04, 116, 135. Father also
presented the testimony of Paternal Grandmother to establish that he
appeared to be sober, and that she babysat the Children and occasionally
provided Father with pictures and information about them during the time he
was absent from their lives. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 139-44.
Following the hearing, on August 27, 2020, the orphans’ court entered
an order denying the petitions to terminate involuntarily Father’s parental
rights to the Children. Petitioners timely filed separate notices of appeal on
September 10, 2020, along with concise statements of errors complained of
on appeal.
Petitioners now raise the following claims on appeal.
1. Was clear and convincing evidence presented to show that
termination was warranted pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.[]
[§] 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), and 2511(b)?
2. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights despite clear and convincing evidence that
Father’s conduct for at least six months immediately preceding
the filing of the petition evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to the child?
3. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights despite clear and convincing evidence that
Father’s conduct for at least six months preceding the filing of the
-4-
J-S03031-21
petition evidenced that Father refused [or] failed to perform
parental duties?
4. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights despite clear and convincing evidence that
the repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal
of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental
care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
well-being?
5. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights despite clear and convincing evidence that
the causes of Father’s incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot
or will not be remedied by Father?
6. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights by failing to give primary consideration to
the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of
the child?
7. Did the [orphans’] court err in denying the termination of
Father’s parental rights by determining that Father’s continued
substance abuse issues were an environmental factor beyond
Father’s control?
8. Did the [orphans’] court err by failing to give any weight to the
recommendations and opinions outlined by the [Children’s] [GAL]
and attorney?
Petitioners’ Brief at 4-6 (suggested answers omitted).3
____________________________________________
3 We note with disapproval that, while Petitioners purport to raise eight claims
for our review, their brief contains only three distinct arguments, in violation
of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument
shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and
shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively
displayed--the particular point treated therein[.]”). However, because this
noncompliance with our Rules is not a substantial defect, and does not hinder
our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we decline to dismiss this
appeal, and we address Petitioners’ claims on the merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101
(“[I]f the defects are in the brief . . . of the appellant and are substantial, the
-5-
J-S03031-21
We review Petitioners’ claims in accordance with the following standard
of review.
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse
of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
the record would support a different result. We have previously
emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs the involuntary termination of
parental rights. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. It requires a bifurcated analysis.
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
termination delineated in [subs]ection 2511(a). Only if the court
determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his
or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of
the analysis pursuant to [subs]ection 2511(b): determination of
the needs and welfare of the child [.]
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
____________________________________________
appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.”); Krauss v. Trane
U.S. Inc., 104 A.3d 556, 584 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“When deficiencies in a brief
hinder our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the
appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived.”).
-6-
J-S03031-21
In this case, the Petitioners requested that the orphans’ court terminate
Father’s parental rights to the Children pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1),
(2), and (b). We need only agree with the court as to any one subsection of
2511(a), as well as subsection 2511(b), to affirm. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d
380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). We focus our analysis on subsections
2511(a)(1) and (b), which provide as follows.
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may
be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least
six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition
either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform
parental duties.
***
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (b).
We begin with Petitioners’ interrelated first, second, and third claims, in
which they challenge the decision of the orphans’ court to deny termination of
Father’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1). To satisfy the
-7-
J-S03031-21
requirements of subsection 2511(a)(1), “the moving party must produce clear
and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior
to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to
relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental
duties.” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008). The orphans’
court must then consider the parent’s explanation for his or her abandonment
of the child, in addition to any post-abandonment contact. Id. This Court has
emphasized that a parent does not perform parental duties by displaying a
merely passive interest in the development of a child. In re B.,N.M., 856
A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 872 A.2d 1200 (Pa. 2005).
Rather,
[p]arental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with
good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in
order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his
or her ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize
all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and
must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in
the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental
rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or
convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities
while others provide the child with his or her physical and
emotional needs.
Id. (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Here, Petitioners emphasize Father had no contact with the Children,
and made no effort to have contact with the Children, from January 2016 until
October 2019, when he filed his custody modification petition and Petitioners
filed their termination petitions. Petitioners’ Brief at 9-10, 13-20. While they
-8-
J-S03031-21
acknowledge that Father filed his custody modification petition within the six
months preceding the filing of their termination petitions, they insist that this
one display of effort cannot overcome Father’s neglect of the Children. Id. at
20-21. Petitioners emphasize the principle, quoted above in B.,N.M., that a
parent may not avoid termination by waiting until a more suitable time to
perform parental responsibilities. Id. at 17-19. Petitioners also contend that
the orphans’ court found Father was able to maintain contact with the Children
through Paternal Grandmother. Id. at 19. Petitioners challenge this finding,
explaining that Paternal Grandmother merely supplied Father with pictures
and information, and that no actual contact occurred. Id. at 19-20.
The orphans’ court explained its decision to deny termination of Father’s
parental rights pursuant subsection 2511(a)(1) as follows.
Before finding sufficient grounds to terminate parental
rights under [subs]ection 2511(a)(1), the court must consider
more than whether the parent has not maintained contact for a
six-month period prior to the filing of the petition to terminate
rights. [In re K.C.W., 689 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 1997).] Indeed,
the court must also consider any barriers that a parent faced
during said period and whether the parent exhibited reasonable
firmness in his or her attempt to overcome those barriers. Id.In the instant case, the Court notes that, although Father
did not visit with the [C]hildren for a substantial amount of time,
his act of distancing himself from the [C]hildren was done with an
eye towards what was in their best interest. Even though Father
was not present to perform traditional parental duties, he testified
that rebuilding a relationship with [the C]hildren was the main
motivating factor in his quest to obtain sobriety. As of the date of
the hearing, Father was reportedly paying $600.00 per month in
child support to Mother. Father was able to maintain contact with
the [C]hildren via Paternal Grandmother . . . until Mother forbade
her from sharing any pertinent information with Father in
-9-
J-S03031-21
September 2019. Shortly after this change in circumstances,
Father petitioned the court for modification of custody and
attempted to make contact with the children himself.
For these reasons, the Court found that [Petitioners] failed
to meet their burden under [subs]ection 2511(a)(1).
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/23/2020, at 4-5.
The finding of the orphans’ court that Father maintained contact with
the Children via Paternal Grandmother is not supported by the record. It is
undisputed that Father has had no contact with the Children since January
2016. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 9-14, 43, 48, 55, 63, 74, 87, 111-17, 120-25, 132-
35. Paternal Grandmother testified that she merely provided him with pictures
and information about the Children.4 Id. at 144. Father has not seen the
Children in person, has not called them on the phone, and has not sent letters
or gifts. Id. at 74, 87, 111-17, 120-25, 132-35. Father admitted this during
his testimony. Id. More significantly, Father admitted that he did not even
make any attempts to see the Children in person, call them on the phone, or
send letters or gifts. Id. It appears that Father’s only contribution to the
Children’s lives during this time was his payment of child support. However,
Father admitted that even that was inconsistent. He explained, “[m]y
employment was so spotty. There were so many stretches of, you know, I
____________________________________________
4 Even these updates were sporadic. Father testified that, until the summer of
2019, he had a poor relationship with Paternal Grandmother and only spoke
to her “every now and then.” Id. at 88-89.
- 10 -
J-S03031-21
might have been able to pay a little bit and nothing for a while.” Id. at 98-
99, 129-30.
While Father filed his petition for modification of custody on October 23,
2019, shortly before Petitioners filed the termination petitions on October 31,
2019, that does not excuse his failure to maintain contact with the Children.
As we have explained, “[a]lthough it is the six months immediately preceding
the filing of the petition that is most critical to the analysis, the [orphans’]
court must consider the whole history of a given case and not mechanically
apply the six-month statutory provision.” B.,N.M., 856 A.2d at 855. The fact
that Father made one attempt to make contact after over three-and-a-half
years of doing nothing does not demonstrate the sort of good faith interest
and effort that the Adoption Act requires. Therefore, we conclude Father
refused or failed to perform his parental duties during the six months
preceding the filing of the termination petitions pursuant to subsection
2511(a)(1). See id. (quoting In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super.
2003), appeal denied, 859 A.2d 767 (Pa. 2004)) (“There is no simple or easy
definition of parental duties. … This affirmative duty encompasses more than
a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest . . . and a genuine effort
to maintain communication and association with the child.”).
In its opinion, the orphans’ court justifies Father’s failure to perform his
parental duties, reasoning that he faced “barriers” to maintaining contact with
the Children and exhibited reasonable firmness in seeking to overcome those
- 11 -
J-S03031-21
barriers by working to obtain sobriety. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/23/2020,
at 4-5. We cannot agree. During the hearing, Mother testified that she lived
in the former marital residence where Father himself used to live, that her
phone number had remained the same since she was married to Father, and
that she had not “blocked” Father on her phone. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 8, 13,
17. Father agreed that Mother’s phone number had not changed. Id. at 97.5
Moreover, the March 2016 custody order awarded Father supervised partial
physical custody of the Children. Id. at 10-12, 34-35, 41-42. Father had
every opportunity to maintain contact with the Children, but did not take even
the most basic steps to do so, such as sending a card or calling them on the
phone. Father’s claim that he planned to contact the Children eventually, after
he achieved a year of sobriety, did not excuse him from taking advantage of
these opportunities. As Petitioners have argued, “[p]arental rights are not
preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s
parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical
and emotional needs.” B.,N.M., 856 A.2d at 855. Thus, we conclude that the
____________________________________________
5 Father made one attempt to call Mother and speak to L.A.K. after the filing
of the termination petitions. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 55, 61-62, 96-97, 129. His
call went to voicemail, and Mother did not call him back. Id.- 12 -
J-S03031-21
court committed an abuse of discretion by denying the petitions to terminate
Father’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1).6
We next consider Petitioners’ sixth, seventh, and eighth claims, in which
they challenge the conclusion of the orphans’ court that terminating Father’s
parental rights would not serve the Children’s needs and welfare pursuant to
subsection 2511(b). Given that the court found Petitioners did not meet their
burden of proof pursuant to subsection 2511(a), it was not necessary for the
court to address subsection 2511(b). Because the court addressed subsection
2511(b) nonetheless, we need not remand for the court to make the necessary
findings, and we may proceed to the merits of Petitioners’ claims. Cf. In re
Adoption of M.R.B., 25 A.3d 1247, 1260 (Pa. Super. 2011) (reversing as to
subsection 2511(a) and remanding, “since the orphans’ court did not engage
in the needs and welfare analysis pursuant to [subsection] 2511(b)”). We
apply the following analysis.
S[ubs]ection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental
rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
emotional needs and welfare of the child. As this Court has
explained, [subs]ection 2511(b) does not explicitly require a
bonding analysis and the term ‘bond’ is not defined in the Adoption
Act. Case law, however, provides that analysis of the emotional
bond, if any, between parent and child is a factor to be considered
as part of our analysis. While a parent’s emotional bond with his
or her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-
____________________________________________
6 Because we conclude that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by denying
termination of Father’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1), we
need not consider Petitioners’ fourth and fifth issues, in which they argue that
the court abused its discretion by denying termination pursuant to subsection
2511(a)(2).
- 13 -
J-S03031-21
interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be
considered by the court when determining what is in the best
interest of the child.
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can
equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and
should also consider the intangibles, such as the love,
comfort, security, and stability the child might have
with the foster parent. Additionally, this Court stated
that the trial court should consider the importance of
continuity of relationships and whether any existing
parent-child bond can be severed without detrimental
effects on the child.
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quotation marks and
citations omitted)).
In this case, Petitioners contend that the Children have no relationship
with Father, and that they view Stepfather as their father. Petitioners’ Brief
at 30-32. Petitioners argue that the termination of Father’s rights would not
be due solely to environmental factors beyond his control, and emphasize that
the Children’s legal counsel and GAL both supported termination. Id.The orphans’ court provided the following analysis in its opinion.
Finally, although the second-half of the bifurcated analysis
is not required unless the Court finds that a particular ground
under [subs]ection 2511(a) is met, [] [P]etitioners would
nonetheless need to prove that the [C]hildren’s developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare would be served by
termination.
[Petitioners] asserted that the [C]hildren do not have a
relationship or a necessary and beneficial bond that needs to be
preserved. Testimony revealed that [L.A.K.], the older child,
refers to Father as “Old Dad,” which is evidence of at least some
kind of relationship between the two of them. Continuing to
- 14 -
J-S03031-21
develop a relationship between Father, and by extension the
parental side of the family tree, and the [C]hildren may serve
the[ir] emotional well-being in the long run. To that end, the
custody order following the Custody Conciliation Conference
recognized this important fact by encouraging the family to be
reintroduced to Father in a therapeutic setting. The Court did not
find that sufficient evidence was produced to demonstrate that the
developmental, physical and emotional needs of the [C]hildren
would be served by termination of Father’s parental rights.
For these reasons, the Court found that [Petitioners] did not
meet their burden under [subs]ection 2511(b).
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/23/2020, at 6-7.
Once again, it is undisputed that Father has not had contact with the
Children since January 2016. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 9-14, 43, 48, 55, 63, 74,
87, 111-17, 120-25, 132-35. A.L.K. was only ten months old at that time,
and L.A.K. was three years old. Father acknowledged at the hearing that
A.L.K. would not know who he is, given her age at the time she last saw him.
Id. at 129. As for L.A.K., Petitioners testified that he had only a vague
recollection of Father and could not even recognize a picture of him. Id. at
23, 58. The Children’s legal counsel and GAL agreed with Petitioners’
characterization. Id. at 151-52, 158. Indeed, both Mother and the GAL
suspected that L.A.K.’s recollections of Father were a product of his
imagination. See id. at 22-23, 158 (the GAL explaining, “[L.A.K.] told a
couple stories that . . . didn’t seem to be based in reality. They weren’t
flattering, but they were also slightly outlandish, so he brought no memories
that seemed to be rational to the table.”). It was plainly unreasonable for the
orphans’ court to conclude that L.A.K. and Father maintain a relationship
- 15 -
J-S03031-21
under these circumstances, simply because L.A.K. knows Father exists and
refers to him as “Old Dad.”
Moreover, the bond analysis that subsection 2511(b) prescribes is not
whether a child has “at least some kind of relationship” with his or her parent.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/23/2020, at 6. The analysis is whether that
relationship is “‘necessary and beneficial’” to the child, and whether severing
that relationship would cause him or her “‘extreme emotional consequences.’”
In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 944 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting In
re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 484-85 (Pa. 1993)). It is apparent in this case, given
Father’s dearth of contact with the Children, that no such relationship exists.
In Father’s absence, Stepfather has provided the Children with consistent
parental care. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 17-19, 22-25, 55-56, 59. The Children
view Stepfather as their father, and he is the one with whom they have a
meaningful relationship. Id. The finding by the orphans’ court that
developing a relationship between the Children and Father “may serve the
emotional well-being in the long run” is speculative and contrary to the
Children’s need for security and stability. Orphans’ Court Opinion,
10/23/2020, at 6; see In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 325 (Pa. Super.
2010) (“S[ubs]ection 2511(b) requires the trial court to determine what effect
breaking an existing parent-child bond will have on the child currently, not
- 16 -
J-S03031-21
speculating whether a bond may be formed in the future.”).7 Thus, we
conclude that the court abused its discretion by denying the petitions to
terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(b).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the orphans’ court abused its discretion
by denying the petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights to the Children
involuntarily pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b). We therefore
reverse the court’s August 27, 2020 order and remand for the court to enter
an order terminating involuntarily Father’s parental rights.
Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Murray joins the memorandum.
Judge Strassburger did not participate in the consideration or decision
of this case.
____________________________________________
7 To be clear, we are not minimizing the potential of a child’s desire to know
a parent and understand the child’s roots. In fact, the Legislature
contemplated such a need by its passage of Subchapter D of Chapter 27 of
the Adoption Act, commonly referred to as Act 101. See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2731-
2742) (providing for voluntary agreement to have post-adoption
communication or contact with a child’s birth relatives). But in the instant
case, the finding that the Children’s most pressing need is the possibility of
developing a relationship with Father, who has been absent for most of their
young lives due to his own instability, is contrary to the law pertaining to
needs and welfare under the Adoption Act.
- 17 -
J-S03031-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/26/2021
- 18 -