J-S36032-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF G.A.

APPEAL OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 410 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 29, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 76 Adopt 2018

IN RE: ADOPTION OF P.A.

APPEAL OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 411 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 29, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 77 ADOPT 2018

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.A.

APPEAL OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 412 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered March 29, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): Case No. 78 Adopt 2018
J-S36032-22

- 2 -

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 28, 2022

A.A. (“Father”) appeals from the decrees entered March 29, 2022 that 

granted the petitions of the Fayette County Child and Youth Services (“CYS”), 

and involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his daughters, D.A. (born 

September 2012) and P.A. (born June 2015), and his son, G.A. (born July 

2016) (collectively, “the Children”).

1

 After careful review, we affirm.

The Children were adjudicated dependent on September 28, 2017, after 

CYS had become involved with the family following reports of housing 

concerns (no heat or electricity in the house and the Children being dirty and 

uncared for), as well as domestic violence and mental health concerns for both 

Father and J.A. (“Mother”).

2 N.T., 3/24/22 (“N.T.”), at 5. The Children were 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Mother’s parental rights to the Children were also terminated. Mother has 

appealed the decrees entered on March 29, 2022 at 387 WDA 2022, 388 WDA 

2022, and 389 WDA 2022. 

2 CYS’s amended petition for involuntary termination of parental rights 

indicates that following the adjudication of dependency, and prior to the 

reports of sexual abuse, a goal plan was established for Father which included, 

inter alia, addressing domestic violence issues, obtaining a mental health 

evaluation and attending all scheduled mental health appointments, obtaining 

appropriate housing free from any safety and health hazards, obtaining 

medical care for the Children as needed, assuring the Children have adequate 

food, shelter and clothing, and attending visitation with the Children 

consistently. Amended Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights, 10/25/21. CYS reported that Father failed to complete the goals set 

for him and failed to make progress on addressing the issues that led to the 

placement of the Children. Id. After Father was indicated as a perpetrator of 

sexual assault by commission against P.A. and G.A. and a perpetrator of 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S36032-22

- 3 -

initially placed together in the Rockwell Foster Home, and remained together 

until August 8, 2018, when CYS received a number of reports from Child 

Protective Services alleging sexual abuse that listed Father and Mother as 

perpetrators and the Children as victims, and that D.A. had reported a need 

to sexually abuse her siblings. Id. at 6. D.A. was then moved to a new 

placement, with a foster mother, and P.A. and G.A. were placed together with 

new foster parents, and the Children have remained in their respective 

placements since then. Id. 

CYS reported the allegations of abuse to the police, and both Father and 

Mother were arrested in August 2018 and charged with numerous criminal 

offenses related to the alleged sexual abuse and neglect of the Children; 

however, the Criminal Information filed against both Father and Mother named

D.A. as the lone victim.3 Father was convicted by a jury, on July 10, 2019, of 

seven counts, including rape of a child; involuntary deviate sexual intercourse 

(with a child under age 13); aggravated indecent assault (of a child under age 

13); indecent assault; endangering the welfare of children; corruption of 

____________________________________________

involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and sexual assault of D.A. by 

commission, the goal plan review completed in July 2018 added the goal of 

completing sexual offender treatment; however Father never sought 

assessment or treatment for sexual abuse issues. Id. 

3 The trial court noted CYS’s acknowledgment that the convictions were only 

as to D.A., but the caseworker testified that Father and Mother were also 

indicated for sexual abuse against both P.A. and G.A. Orphans’ Court Opinion 

at 18; N.T. at 15. At the hearing, counsel for CYS stated that the Criminal 

Information was not filed against P.A. and G.A. because they were not old 

enough to testify at trial. N.T. at 15-16.
J-S36032-22

- 4 -

minors; and sexual assault. Father was sentenced to seventeen to forty years 

of imprisonment.4 N.T. at 9-10, Petitioner’s Exhibits 4 and 5. 

Initially, CYS filed petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights 

against both Father and Mother on December 21, 2018;

5 however, the 

petitions were continued generally pending disposition of the criminal charges 

against Father and Mother. Following the convictions, CYS amended its 

petitions on October 26, 2021 and at the time set for the hearing, it proceeded 

solely on the grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 

2511(a)(10) and (b).

On March 24, 2022, the orphans’ court conducted evidentiary hearings 

on the petitions. CYS presented the testimony of Marissa Engle, the on-going 

caseworker for the Children. The Children were represented by James Geibig, 

Esq., as guardian ad litem. After CYS rested its case, Father moved for a 

continuance, arguing that although his conviction had been affirmed on appeal 

to this Court, he was still litigating pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

and his criminal case had not yet been fully resolved.

6

 N.T. at 17. The court 

____________________________________________

4 Mother was convicted of indecent assault – person less than 13 years of age, 

corruption of minors, and endangering the welfare of children. Mother was 

sentenced to three to seven years in prison. N.T. at 8-9, Petitioner’s Exhibits 

1 and 2.

5 The original petitions to involuntarily terminate both Father’s and Mother’s 

rights to the Children were filed pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), 

(5) and (8).

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S36032-22

- 5 -

denied the motion, explaining that “the statute requires only a conviction and 

not finality of the judgment,” see Orphans’ Court Opinion at 4, and granted 

the petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights.

On appeal, Father raises a sole question for our review:

Did the lower court err by proceeding with the hearing on the 

petition to terminate parental rights in the above captioned case 

before the final judgment in Father’s criminal case, when the 

termination of Father’s parental rights are based on the facts of 

his criminal case?

Father’s Brief at 3.

We review Father’s claim mindful of our well-settled standard of review:

“[i]n cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights, appellate 

review is limited to a determination of whether the decree of the termination 

court is supported by competent evidence.” In re Adoption of C.M., 255

A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When applying this standard, the appellate court 

must accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if 

they are supported by the record. Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123

(Pa. 2021). “Where the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the 

evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it 

has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of

L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021).

____________________________________________

6

In its opinion, the orphans’ court noted that Father’s direct appeal was denied 

by this Court on March 5, 2021, no further appeal was taken, and postconviction proceedings have been pending since May 2021. Orphans’ Court 

Opinion at 6-7. 
J-S36032-22

- 6 -

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court must 

balance the parent’s fundamental “right to make decisions concerning the 

care, custody, and control” of his or her child with the “child’s essential needs 

for a parent’s care, protection, and support.” C.M., 255 A.3d at 358. 

Termination of parental rights has “significant and permanent consequences 

for both the parent and child.” L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 591. As such, the law of 

this Commonwealth requires the moving party to establish the statutory 

grounds by clear and convincing evidence, which is evidence that is so “clear, 

direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear 

conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” C.M.,

255 A.3d at 359 (citation omitted).

Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938, which 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 Section 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 Section 2511(b): determination of the 

needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests 

of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis 

concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between 

parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child 

of permanently severing any such bond.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Here, 

the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 2511(a)(10) and (b). Section 2511 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
J-S36032-22

- 7 -

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination

(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:

- - -

(10) The parent has been found by a court of competent 

jurisdiction to have committed sexual abuse against the 

child or another child of the parent based on a judicial 

adjudication equivalent to an offense in subparagraph 

1(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) or (4) of the definition of “founded 

report” in section 6303(a) (relating to definitions) 

where the judicial adjudication is based on a finding of 

“sexual abuse or exploitation” as defined in section 

6303(a).

- - -

(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...

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(10), and (b) (emphasis supplied).

Section 6303(a) defines “founded report” as occurring when,

(1) There has been a judicial adjudication based on a finding that 

a child who is a subject of the report has been abused and the 

adjudication involves the same factual circumstances involved in 

the allegation of child abuse. The judicial adjudication may include 

any of the following:

- - -

(ii) a finding of guilt to a criminal charge.

- - -

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a).
J-S36032-22

- 8 -

The relevant portions of Section 6303 define “sexual abuse or 

exploitation” to include any of the enumerated offenses committed against a 

child including:

(i) Rape as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121 (relating to rape).

- - -

(iii) Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse as defined in 18 

Pa.C.S. § 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual 

intercourse).

- - -

(vi) Aggravated indecent assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. §

3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault).

(vii) Indecent assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3126 

(relating to indecent assault).

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303. 

Before this Court, Father argues that his criminal convictions cannot be 

the sole basis for the termination of his parental rights when all litigation 

involving such convictions are not fully resolved and there is still the possibility 

that his convictions will be overturned, leaving him no recourse to reinstate 

said parental rights. Father’s Brief at 12. We find this argument to be without 

merit. At the termination hearing, CYS presented the testimony of its 

caseworker, who identified each of the exhibits which were then offered into 

evidence, including the verdict slips indicating “guilty” for each of the seven 

counts against him, the sentencing orders, and the sexual offender notification 

for a Tier III sexual offense. CYS Exhibits 4-6; N.T. at 9-10. In its opinion, 

the orphans’ court found this evidence 
J-S36032-22

- 9 -

sufficient pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(10) to involuntarily 

terminate the parental rights of...[Father] having been convicted 

by a jury [on July 10, 2019] of rape, involuntary deviate sexual 

intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault. 

The victim in the criminal actions was [Father’s] biological 

daughter, [D.A.]. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(10) provides authority to 

terminate parental rights as to the victim, [D.A.], and to other 

children of the convicted parents, here [P.A.] and [G.A.]. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion at 6.

“By its plain language, the Adoption Act only requires the petitioner to 

introduce proof of the parent’s conviction, not proof of the facts underlying 

the parent’s guilt.” Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 831 (Pa. Super. 2022) 

(holding father’s aggravated assault conviction, following a nolo contendere

plea, considered competent evidence to establish grounds to terminate 

parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(9)(ii)) (emphasis supplied). Here, 

CYS submitted proof of Father’s convictions of seven criminal offenses, 

including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent 

assault and indecent assault. Pursuant to Section 2511(a)(10) and Section 

6303 incorporated therein, the jury’s finding that Father was guilty of those 

crimes constitutes a judicial adjudication based on a finding of “sexual abuse 

or exploitation.” 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(10), 6303(a). 

In its opinion, the orphans’ court addressed the question of timing as 

to when a criminal conviction for sexual abuse may be used to involuntarily 

terminate parental rights, noting that Section 2511(10) requires a “judicial 

adjudication” as defined in the “founded report” in Section 6303(a), and the 

“judicial adjudication” occurred on July 18, 2019, the date of sentence. See
J-S36032-22

- 10 -

Orphans’ Court Opinion at 6. In In the Interest of K.E.E., 240 A.3d 910 

(2020) (unpublished memorandum), our Court previously acknowledged that 

there is not a wealth of caselaw concerning challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence regarding termination of a parent’s rights pursuant to Section 

2511(a)(9), the ground for termination based upon a conviction for delineated 

offenses, including aggravated assault, against the parent’s child.7 Similarly, 

there is a dearth of caselaw regarding challenges to the companion grounds 

for termination set forth in Section 2511(a)(10). We find our Court’s decision 

in K.E.E., albeit non-precedential,8to be instructive. In K.E.E., the mother 

was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed aggravated 

assault, whereas here, Father has been found to have committed sexual 

abuse. In both cases, the parent argued that because their appeal from the 

conviction has not been finally resolved, clear and convincing evidence is

lacking sufficient to satisfy the statutory grounds for termination. Id. at *16. 

In K.E.E., our Court interpreted Section 2511(a)(9), and concluded that the 

____________________________________________

7 Section 2511(a)(9) provides for the termination of parental rights after:

(9) The parent has been convicted of one of the following in which 

the victim was a child of the parent:

- - -

(ii) a felony under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702 (relating to aggravated 

assault);

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(9).

8 Non-precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their 

persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b). 
J-S36032-22

- 11 -

orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the agency had 

introduced clear and convincing evidence sufficient to find the mother had 

been convicted of aggravated assault of her child such that the requirements 

of the statute were satisfied. Id. at *22. Our Court acknowledged that the 

term “conviction” is not explicitly defined in the Adoption Act, but noted that 

“it is generally understood, for legal purposes, to refer to a judgment of 

sentence entered after a finding of guilt or entry of a plea.” Id. at *20. See 

also Commonwealth v. Hale, 85 A.3d 570, 582 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(“Succinctly put, without a sentence, a verdict or plea generally was not a 

‘conviction’ under Pennsylvania law.”).

The K.E.E. court stated:

When specifying that courts may terminate parental rights for 

convictions of certain crimes, the legislature made no mention of 

the appellate process. The legislature specifically did not require 

a final judgment of sentence, as it did in the requirements for 

jurisdiction to file a petition seeking Post Conviction Relief. See

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545. Accordingly, the Domestic Relations Code, 

which specifies a conviction, is not ambiguous and when “the 

words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter 

of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its 

spirit.” G.A.P. [v. J.M.W., 194 A.3d 614,] 616-617 [(Pa. 2018)].

K.E.E., unpublished memorandum at *21. Both the orphans’ court here and 

the K.E.E. court correctly observed that because “we presume the General 

Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or 

unreasonable and does intend to favor the public interest over any private 

interest,” we cannot come to the conclusion that our legislature intended to 

force our lower courts to wait to issue termination decrees until a parent could 
J-S36032-22

- 12 -

potentially exhaust all avenues of appeal and post-conviction review, a 

process that could take years. See G.A.P., 194 A.3d at 616-17.

Accordingly, we find that the evidence of Father’s guilty verdict for rape, 

involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault and 

indecent assault and accompanying judgment of sentence presented at the 

hearing constituted clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination 

under Section 2511(a)(10), and the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion 

in finding such. 

Father does not challenge the orphans’ court’s conclusion under Section 

2511(b). At the hearing, the caseworker testified that the Children were 

adjudicated dependent over five years ago, and have remained in their 

respective placements since 2018. The Children are doing well, and are 

receiving treatment as a result of the trauma caused by the sexual abuse 

inflicted by their parents. N.T. at 11-12. The caseworker testified that the 

Children have suffered no adverse effects from not having seen their parents 

since 2018, and all three have bonded with their respective families, which 

are both prospective adopters. Id. at 13. D.A. sees P.A. and G.A. every 

other month, and the Children communicate via video facetime calls two times 

per month. Id. at 14. The court found no familial bond with either parent 

and determined that the severance of parental rights would allow permanency 

for the Children; the court further concluded that their foster care families had 

provided them a safe, stable home, with continued love, protection and 

support. Orphans’ Court Opinion at 23. The credited testimony supports the 
J-S36032-22

- 13 -

orphans’ court conclusion that it would best serve the needs and welfare of 

the Children to terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b). 

Accordingly, the orphans’ court did not err in terminating Father’s parental 

rights concerning the Children.

Decrees affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/28/2022