J-S64045-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: P.G.F

APPEAL OF: K.F., NATURAL FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1284 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered August 7, 2019

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

No(s): No. 3 AD 2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JANUARY 27, 2020

K.F. (Father) appeals from the August 7, 2019 order of the Bedford 

County Orphans’ Court (trial court) granting the petition of T.G.H. (Mother) 

and E.N.H. (Husband) to terminate Father’s parental rights to his son, P.G.F. 

(Child). This case returns to our court after a remand to determine whether 

Child was entitled to appointment of legal counsel in addition to his guardian 

ad litem (GAL). See In re P.G.F., 1464 WDA 2018 at *10 (Pa. Super. March 

13, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). After careful review, we affirm.

I.

The previous panel of this Court summarized the facts of this matter:

Mother and Father, who never married, gave birth to Child in July 

2012. See N.T., 7/31/18, at 6-7. At the time of Child’s birth, 

Mother and Father were living with Mother’s parents (Maternal 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S64045-19

- 2 -

Grandparents). Id. at 7. However, when Child was approximately 

a month-and-a-half or two months old, Mother and Father ended 

their romantic relationship, and Father moved out of the 

residence. Id. at 7-8.

Mother and Child continued to reside with Maternal Grandparents 

until Maternal Grandparents ended their marriage. Id. at 9-10. 

Mother and Child moved with Maternal Grandmother among 

several residences in Bedford County. Id. at 8-10. In 2013, 

Mother filed a custody action against Father. Id. at 11. In May 

2014, Mother and Father entered into a custody agreement, where 

Father had physical custody every other weekend. Id. at 12. 

Father was able to exercise his custody rights for approximately 

eight months, when Child was approximately three years old. Id.

at 20.

In October 2017, Mother married [Husband]. Id. at 5. They 

began residing together immediately after marriage. Id. at 8. On 

February 27, 2018, Mother and Husband filed a petition seeking 

to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights. The court 

appointed Carole Rose, Esq., as guardian ad litem/legal counsel 

to represent Child.[]

The court held evidentiary hearings on July 31, 2018, and 

September 11, 2018. Mother, D.H. (“Paternal Grandmother”), 

Husband, and Father testified. Attorney Rose was present at the

hearing and cross-examined the witnesses.

Mother testified that when she and Father first ended their 

relationship and up until the time that Child was approximately 

one year old, they attempted to co-parent. Id. at 10-11. 

Following the custody agreement in May 2014, Father exercised 

his custody rights for approximately eight months, or “a few” 

months into 2015. Id. at 17-23. However, visitation “slowed

down,” and Paternal Grandmother became more involved with 

Child and took Child when Father was to exercise his custody 

rights. Id. at 12-14. Mother claimed that, over the last five years,

custody had always been shared between Mother and Paternal 

Grandmother, and Father had not picked up Child from Mother’s 

custody in that time. Id. at 14.

Mother also claimed that Father had no contact with her, and 

never inquired about Child on birthdays or holidays, or when Child 

required surgery to remove his tonsils and adenoids when Child 
J-S64045-19

- 3 -

was three years old. Id. at 15-16. Mother texted Father and sent 

him Facebook messages about doctor’s appointments but never 

received a response. Id. at 15-16, 46-47. Mother denied that 

Father or Paternal Grandmother sent Child birthday cards, 

Christmas cards, or gifts, although he did give gifts and cards to 

his other child. Id. at 29, 35. However, Mother received child 

support from Father. Id. at 27.

Mother admitted that Child sometimes stated that Father was at 

Paternal Grandmother’s house. Id. at 26. However, she 

disagreed that Child had an overnight stay with Father in the last 

three years. Id. at 29-30. Mother denied that Child referred to 

Father as “dad.” Id. at 26. According to Mother, Child refers to 

Husband as “dad,” and to Father by his first name, or as “Grammy 

[Paternal Grandmother]’s friend.” Id. at 29-31. Mother claimed

that Child did not know Father was his biological father. Id. at 

31. Mother disagreed that she hid her whereabouts from Father 

or blocked him on social media. Id. at 20-21, 34. However, on 

cross-examination, she admitted that she sent text messages 

stating that she did not want Father to be around Child, and that 

she did not want Child to be taken to Paternal GreatGrandmother’s house. Id. at 55-62. Mother stated that if Father 

had contacted her at the end of 2015 regarding his court-ordered 

custody periods, she probably would have said “yes,” but as time

passed without his visits, she would have said “no”. Id. at 63-64.

Mother testified that she wishes for Husband to be able to adopt 

Child, because he performs fatherly duties for Child, and because 

Mother and Husband are expecting a child of their own. Id. at 

39-40. Mother stated she would not prevent Paternal 

Grandmother from seeing Child if Father’s parental rights were 

terminated. Id. at 43-44.

Paternal Grandmother testified that Father has seen Child “even 

more than what [Mother] has said or maybe even realized.” See

N.T., 9/11/18, at 7. Paternal Grandmother indicated she does not 

refer to Father as such in front of Child, and instead calls Father 

by his first name to avoid confusing Child. Id. at 8. Although 

Father is often around when Paternal Grandmother has custody of 

Child, when Mother told Paternal Grandmother that she was not 

allowed to have Father around Child, she obeyed. Id. at 10. 

Paternal Grandmother believed that Mother made it difficult for 

Father to be in Child’s life and this was about the time that his 

relationship with Child changed. Id. at 13, 32. At first, Father 
J-S64045-19

- 4 -

was there “one hundred percent” but that eventually “it just 

seemed like it was easier for him not to fight and argue to get 

[Child].” Id. at 14. Paternal Grandmother also admitted that 

Father had not had a father-son relationship with Child for the last 

two years. Id. at 22. However, she attributed this to the “strain” 

with Mother and noted that Father was a good father to his other 

child. Id. at 38. Paternal Grandmother denied that she took Child 

because Father was not caring for Child appropriately. Id. at 46-

47.

Husband testified that his relationship with Child is “really good,” 

and that he tries to not be involved in any issues involving Mother, 

Father, and Child. Id. at 53-54. Husband stated that Child calls 

him “dad,” and respects him as a paternal figure. Id. at 55-56. 

Child has never brought up Father to Husband. Id. at 55. In 

cross-examining Husband, Attorney Rose noted she had spoken 

with Child:

[Attorney Rose]. So, when I spoke with [Child,] I 

asked him who he lived with and he named mom, and 

he must have named your parents[’] names and your 

brothers, but I had to ask him several times to get 

him to say it. He said, [Husband’s nickname].

[Husband]. Yeah. Could be it.

[Attorney Rose]. And I said, I’m sorry, I had to ask 

him a couple times to repeat that. He was very 

specific he lived with his mom and [Husband’s 

nickname]. I had to look at the petition for your name 

and he said yes. But he never referred to you as dad.

Does that surprise you?

[Husband]. Not necessarily.

Id. at 61. Husband explained that Child, in addition to “dad,” 

occasionally calls Husband by his nickname. Id. at 61.

Father testified that he has two children: Child and a younger 

daughter. Id. at 64-65. Although he has no custody order for his 

daughter, he has had no issues sharing custody with his 

daughter’s mother. Id. at 65. Father testified, that, at the time 

of Child’s birth, he and Mother were both working full time, and 

maternal and paternal grandparents helped care for Child. Id. at 
J-S64045-19

- 5 -

68. When Father was home, he cared for Child, including changing 

his diaper. Id. at 68. After Father and Mother separated, Father 

had partial custody of Child at his home every other weekend, and 

one overnight during the week. Id. at 68-69. At some point, 

Paternal Grandmother began taking custody of Child; Father 

claimed this was because his daughter’s mother and Mother did 

not get along. Id. at 72-73. Father then “stopped trying” because 

he was “tired of the games.” Id. at 74-75. Father also noted that 

about a year prior to the termination hearing, Mother had asked 

him to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights. Id. at 100.

With respect to his interactions with Child, Father described Child 

not talkative, and that Father did not want to “push” himself onto 

Child or scare him away. Id. at 80. Father stated that although 

Child calls Father by his first name, Child did “not always” do so. 

Id. at 94. Father testified that he was present for several of 

Child’s birthdays, including Child’s fourth, and Christmas in 2017. 

Id. at 82-83. Father denied taking inappropriate care of Child, in 

response to Mother’s averments that Father had failed to change

Child’s diapers. Id. at 83-84. Father stated he could not attend 

Child’s tonsils surgeries because he had to work. Id. at 85. 

Father acknowledged that the garage where he works is very close 

to Paternal Grandmother’s residence, and he would often walk to 

the house to see Child. Id. at 95.

In re P.G.F., 1464 WDA 2018 at *1-7 (footnote omitted).

On remand to the trial court to determine whether Child’s legal interests 

conflicted with his best interests and, if necessary, to appoint separate legal 

counsel for Child, the trial court found that there was no conflict between 

Child’s legal and best interests. Notes of Testimony (“Remand Hearing”), 

8/7/19, at 23. The trial court reinstated its order of September 27, 2018, 

terminating Father’s parental rights. Id. at 24-25. Father timely filed a notice 

of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-S64045-19

- 6 -

On appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred in determining that 

there was no conflict between Child’s legal and best interests. He also argues 

that his parental rights should not have been terminated because clear and 

convincing evidence did not establish a settled purpose on his part of 

relinquishing those rights or that he failed to perform parental duties for at 

least six months prior to the filing of the petition.1

II.

A.

As to his argument that that the trial court erred in determining that 

there was no conflict between Child’s legal and best interests, the Adoption 

Act requires that counsel be appointed for a minor child in any involuntary 

termination of parental rights proceeding in which a parent contests the 

termination. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a). In In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 

172 (Pa. 2017) (plurality), a majority of our Supreme Court held that this 

provision requires that counsel be appointed to represent the child’s “legal 

interests.”2 Id. at 183-84. In addition to considering the child’s legal 

____________________________________________

1 Father does not argue that termination of his parental rights did not serve 

Child’s best interests pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). See In re J.T.M., 

193 A.3d 403, 408 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2018) (holding that appellant waived any 

challenge to the trial court’s determination under Section 2511(b) by failing 

to raise it in his concise statement and brief).

2 A child’s legal interests “are synonymous with the child’s preferred outcome.” 

In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 174 (Pa. 2017) (plurality). In 

contrast, “‘[b]est interests’ denotes that a [GAL] is to express what the [GAL] 
J-S64045-19

- 7 -

interests, the trial court must also determine what outcome would be in the 

child’s best interests. Id. at 174; 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

The Supreme Court later clarified that a GAL who is appointed to 

represent the best interests of the child may also serve as the child’s legal 

counsel when there is no conflict between the child’s legal and best interests. 

In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018). On review, this court must 

afford substantial deference to the trial court’s factual and credibility 

determinations regarding whether there is a conflict between the child’s legal 

and best interests. In re Adoption of K.M.G., __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 

4392506, at *4 (Pa. Super. September 13, 2019) (en banc).

The record reflects that on remand, Attorney Rose consulted with Child 

and determined that Child’s preferred outcome was to remain with Mother and 

Husband. Remand Hearing at 6, 8-9, 16. In fact, Child became upset when 

considering the possibility of not living with Mother and Husband. Id. Child 

identified Husband as his father and did not seem to remember Father at all. 

Id. at 5, 12, 16. When asked if he knew anyone by Father’s name, Child could 

only recall a classmate who shares the same name as Father. Id. at 5-6, 12, 

18-19. He did not appear to recall spending any time with Father. Id. at 10-

____________________________________________

believes is best for the child’s care, protection, safety, and wholesome physical 

and mental development regardless of whether the child agrees.” Id. at 174 

n.2 (quoting Pa.R.J.C.P. 1154 cmt.).
J-S64045-19

- 8 -

11. He identified Husband’s parents as his own grandparents. Id. at 5. In 

light of these facts, the trial court’s determination that Child’s legal and best 

interests do no conflict is well-supported by the record and it did not err in 

declining to appoint separate legal interests’ counsel for Child.

3

B.

As to the merits, Father contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion in holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support 

the termination of his parental rights. “The party seeking termination must 

prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the 

statutory grounds for termination delineated in [the subsections of 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 2511(a)].” In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 942 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(quoting In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Clear and 

____________________________________________

3 The dissent argues that Attorney Rose did not fulfill her duties as legal 

interests counsel because she did not explain to Child that Father was his 

biological father and specifically ask how Child felt about terminating Father’s 

rights. When this case was remanded for a hearing on Child’s best and legal 

interests over a year after the initial hearings, Attorney Rose determined that 

Child no longer remembered Father. This Court held that legal counsel 

correctly discharged her duty in similar circumstances in In re Adoption of 

C.J.A., 204 A.3d 496, 502 (Pa. Super. 2019). There, legal counsel declined 

to explain to the child that he had a biological father when the child was not 

aware that the biological father existed. Id. We agreed that under the unique 

circumstances, where the child did not know his father at all, legal counsel 

had correctly discharged her duty based on the child’s age, mental condition 

and emotional condition in declining to explain those circumstances,

particularly when the child had already bonded with his proposed adoptive 

father. Id. The same analysis applies here.
J-S64045-19

- 9 -

convincing evidence is that which is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing 

as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, 

of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322, 326 

(Pa. Super. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The orphans’ court 

may then enter a final decree of involuntary termination if it is in the child’s 

best interests as outlined in Section 2511(b). Id.4

To terminate parental rights, it must be shown “by conduct continuing 

for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the 

petition either [] evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim 

to a child or [] refused or failed to perform parental duties.” 23 Pa.C.S. §

2511(a)(1). “[P]arental rights may be terminated pursuant to Section 

2511(a)(1) if the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of 

relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties.” In 

re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted; emphasis 

added). “Although the six month period immediately preceding the filing of 

____________________________________________

4 We review such a decree for an abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 

395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[w]e give great 

deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties 

spanning multiple hearings.” In re Interest of D.F., 165 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. 

Super. 2017). “We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record 

in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by 

competent evidence.” In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005). “The 

trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is 

likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the 

evidence.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 477 (Pa. Super. 2010). “If competent 

evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if the record 

could also support the opposite result.” Id.
J-S64045-19

- 10 -

the petition is most critical to the analysis, the court must consider the whole 

history of the case and not mechanically apply the six-month statutory 

provision.” In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa. Super. 2009).

This court has defined “parental duties” as “a positive duty which 

requires affirmative performance” to meet the physical and emotional needs

of the child. In re Adoption of N.N.H., 197 A.3d 777, 784 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(internal quotations and citation omitted). Moreover,

Parental 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 ... her physical and emotional needs.

Id. Merely providing financial support without maintaining an emotional 

relationship is not sufficient to fulfill parental duties. In re Shives, 525 A.2d 

801, 803 (Pa. Super. 1987). When one parent creates obstacles to a 

noncustodial parent’s relationship with his child, this court must consider the 

noncustodial parent’s explanation for failure to perform parental duties to 

determine whether the parent used “all available resources to preserve the 

parent-child relationship.” Id.

Even when one parent creates obstacles to the other parent’s exercise 

of parental rights and duties, the law requires that the noncustodial parent 

exercise reasonable firmness to overcome those obstacles rather than 
J-S64045-19

- 11 -

passively acquiesce to the other parent’s actions. See C.M.S., 832 A.2d at 

464. In C.M.S., mother unilaterally arranged for adoption and placement of 

the child immediately following her birth and without notifying father. Id. at 

459. When father learned of the placement, he was advised that he would 

receive paperwork once the adoption process began and the adoption 

intermediary refused to provide him with any information regarding the child’s 

whereabouts. Id. at 463 (citation omitted). Rather than taking any further 

action to initiate custody proceedings, father waited 14 months until he was

served with adoption paperwork to challenge the proceedings. Id.

This court held that father’s failure to act for 14 months did not satisfy 

his obligation to pursue his parental rights and duties with reasonable 

firmness. Id. at 463-64. While father had verbally opposed adoption when 

he spoke with the intermediary, he took no further action to assert his rights, 

perform parental duties or form a relationship with his child. Id. at 464. 

Accordingly, we held that there was clear and convincing evidence to 

terminate his parental rights under Section 2511(a)(1). Id.; compare In re 

Adoption of C.J.A., 204 A.3d 496, 505 (Pa. Super. 2019) (holding that record 

did not support termination when, despite mother’s efforts to prevent father 

from seeing child, father did “everything in his power to reestablish a 

relationship with [c]hild and perform parental duties,” including hiring a 

private investigator and initiating a custody action).
J-S64045-19

- 12 -

In this case, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father 

failed to perform his parental duties for at least six months preceding the filing 

of the petition. Significantly, although Father was aware that the custody 

order in place awarded him regular periods of custody of Child, he made no 

effort to enforce the order once Mother stopped delivering Child for his periods 

of custody. N.T., 9/11/18, at 68-69. Father knew that he could petition the 

court to enforce or modify the custody order that was in place, as he had 

petitioned pro se in 2014 to modify the order when he wanted to exercise 

custody over Child during the holidays. Id. at 70, 75-78, 86-90. Nonetheless, 

for at least two years before Mother filed the petition to terminate Father’s 

parental rights, Father made no effort to enforce his right to custody of Child 

or build the father-son relationship. Instead of showing reasonable firmness, 

he passively acquiesced to Mother’s obstacles and testified that because he 

was “tired of the games,” he elected to “stop trying.” Id. at 74-75.

Both Paternal Grandmother and Father admitted that Father’s 

relationship with Child had become strained and Child does not see him as his 

father. Id. at 20, 22, 80-81, 96. Paternal Grandmother also acknowledged 

that Child currently views Husband as a father figure, though she believed 

that given the chance, Father could reestablish himself as a father figure to 

Child. Id. at 38, 50. Father stated that in the six months to one year prior 

to the hearing, he had had contact with Child “a handful of times” and that he 

did not have a relationship with Child for the prior two years. Id. at 79, 96. 
J-S64045-19

- 13 -

Further, Mother testified that Father had not spoken to her to request custody 

of Child since 2015. N.T., 7/31/18, at 33, 50.

While the record reflects that Mother, as early as December 2016, 

created barriers to Father’s ability to exercise custody and maintain a parentchild relationship, Father failed to respond to these efforts with any degree of 

“reasonable firmness” to perform parental duties. Id. at 63-64. The obstacles 

created by Mother were in place during the relevant six-month period prior to 

the filing of the petition, but the record supports the trial court’s finding that 

these obstacles emerged only after years of Father’s virtual non-participation 

in the care and custody of Child. Id. at 17-23, 63-64. Further, even though 

Father complied with a domestic relations order to pay child support to Mother, 

payment of support in absence of a parent-child relationship or emotional 

bond is insufficient to establish that Father performed his parental duties. Id.

at 27; N.T. 9/11/18 at 107-08; Shrives, supra.

The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father failed to 

perform his parental duties for at least six months prior to the filing of the 

petition. Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Father’s parental rights.

Order affirmed.

Judge Lazarus joins the memorandum.

Judge Bowes files a dissenting memorandum.
J-S64045-19

- 14 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/27/2020