J-S19032-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.R.

APPEAL OF: K.M.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2993 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 17, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2018-A0097

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.J.R. 

APPEAL OF K.M.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2997 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 17, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2018-A0095

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2019

K.M.M. (Mother) appeals from the decrees entered September 17, 2018, 

which terminated involuntarily her parental rights to her children, T.J.R., a 

male born in June 2011, and T.R., a female born in January 2013 (collectively, 

Children).1 We affirm. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The orphans’ court entered a separate decree confirming the consent of 

Children’s father, T.R. (Father) to relinquish his parental rights, and 
J-S19032-19

- 2 -

The record reveals that Children began living with T.M. (Paternal 

Grandmother) pursuant to a custody agreement in 2013.2 N.T., 9/14/2018, 

at 18-19. While the details are not entirely clear from the record, Mother and 

Father lacked electricity in their home, and later became homeless. Id. at 19. 

Mother agreed to grant custody of Children to Paternal Grandmother after the 

Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth alerted her that it would 

place Children in foster care if she did not. Id. at 37. It is undisputed that 

Mother last had contact with Children in December 2013. Id. at 20. Since 

that time, Mother attempted to visit Children on only one occasion by 

appearing outside Paternal Grandmother’s home unannounced. Id. at 47.

However, Paternal Grandmother and Children were not home at the time. Id.

Mother provided no subsequent financial support to Children, nor did she send 

them cards, letters, or gifts. Id. at 20, 22. In February 2017, Mother moved 

to Florida. Id. at 47. 

On May 21, 2018, Paternal Grandmother, acting pro se, filed a petition 

to terminate Mother’s parental rights to T.J.R. involuntarily and a petition for 

____________________________________________

terminating his parental rights to Children on the same day. Father did not 

file a notice of appeal, nor did he participate in this appeal.

2 The exact time that Children began residing with Paternal Grandmother was 

a subject of disagreement during the termination proceedings. Paternal 

Grandmother testified that this occurred “earlier in 2013, shortly after [T.R.] 

was born.” N.T., 9/14/2018, at 18-19. Mother testified that T.J.R. began to 

reside with Paternal Grandmother in October 2013 and that T.R. followed suit

a month later. Id. at 41. 
J-S19032-19

- 3 -

adoption. She filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to T.R. 

involuntarily the next day, as well as an additional petition for adoption. The 

orphans’ court conducted a hearing on Paternal Grandmother’s petition on 

September 14, 2018.

3 At the start of the hearing, Mother stated that she 

would like to relinquish her parental rights to Children voluntarily. N.T., 

9/14/2018, at 7. The court then conducted a colloquy with Mother before 

dictating an order on the record terminating her parental rights. Id. at 8-14. 

However, immediately after the court dictated its order, Mother insisted that 

she did not want Paternal Grandmother to adopt Children. Id. at 15. 

Accordingly, the court proceeded to conduct the involuntary termination 

hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made its findings of fact 

on the record and announced that it would terminate Mother’s rights. The 

court entered its decrees memorializing this decision on September 17, 2018. 

Mother timely filed notices of appeal on October 15, 2018, along with concise 

statements of errors complained of on appeal.

____________________________________________

3 The orphans’ court appointed legal counsel to represent Children during the 

termination proceedings. Counsel stated that she had the opportunity to meet

Children. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 5. Moreover, it was undisputed during the 

hearing that Children did not remember Mother and did not know that she 

existed. Id. at 27-28; see In re Adoption of C.J.A., 204 A.3d 496, at *4 

(Pa. Super. 2019) (concluding that the child’s legal counsel provided sufficient 

representation of his legal interests where she explained that the child did not 

remember his father and believed that his stepfather was his biological 

parent). We observe with disapproval that Children’s counsel failed to file a 

brief on appeal. See In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 184 A.3d 585, 590 (Pa. 

Super. 2018) (explaining that counsel’s duty to represent a child continues on 

appeal). However, we are satisfied that she represented Children’s legal 

interests in the proceeding before the orphans’ court sufficiently. 
J-S19032-19

- 4 -

Mother raises the following claims for our review.

[1.] Whether the [orphans’] court erred or abused its discretion in 

granting [Paternal Grandmother’s] petition for involuntary 

termination of parental rights of [Mother] after determining that 

[Paternal] Grandmother had established a legal basis for 

terminating the parental rights of Mother under 23 Pa.C.S.[]

§ 2511(a)(1) when the order of the [orphans’] court was not 

supported by competent evidence?

[2.] Whether the [orphans’] court erred or abused its discretion in 

granting [Paternal Grandmother’s] petition for involuntary 

termination of parental rights of the biological mother [Mother] 

after determining that [Paternal] Grandmother had established 

that termination of Mother’s rights will not negatively affect the 

general welfare and needs of the subject minor [Children] under 

23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511(b) when Mother’s efforts at bonding were 

thwarted by [Paternal] Grandmother?

Mother’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization and suggested answers 

omitted).

4

We review Mother’s claims mindful of 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 

____________________________________________

4 On January 4, 2019, this Court entered a per curiam order remanding this 

case for the orphans’ court to ascertain whether Mother’s counsel abandoned 

her on appeal. We entered this order because Mother’s counsel failed to file 

a brief in compliance with our December 7, 2018 deadline. The orphans’ court 

submitted its response on January 18, 2019, indicating that counsel had not 

abandoned Mother. On January 22, 2019, this Court entered another per 

curiam order, instructing counsel to file a brief on Mother’s behalf by February 

5, 2019. Mother’s counsel complied with our order by filing a brief on February 

5, 2019.
J-S19032-19

- 5 -

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 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)[.]

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

Here, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant 

to 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 
J-S19032-19

- 6 -

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 consider first whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion by 

terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1). To 

meet the requirements of that subsection, “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 court must 

then consider the parent’s explanation for his or her abandonment of the child, 

in addition to any post-abandonment contact. Id. We have 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) (quoting In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

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 
J-S19032-19

- 7 -

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. (citations omitted). 

In the instant matter, the orphans’ court set forth its findings of fact at 

the conclusion of the hearing. The court concluded that Paternal Grandmother 

presented clear and convincing evidence that Mother had refused or failed to 

perform her parental duties during the six months immediately preceding the 

filing of the termination petitions in May 2018. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 72-73.

The court found that Mother attempted to visit with Children only once after 

December 2013. Id. at 72. This attempt occurred in 2014, and Mother made 

no significant efforts thereafter to visit with Children or develop a relationship 

with Paternal Grandmother. Id. Further, Mother did not send Children cards, 

gifts, or financial support. Id. at 72-73. The court explained, “I know that 

[Mother] has testified she wishes to have a relationship with the [C]hildren, 

but that desire alone, unaccompanied by any affirmative actions on her part 

taken to create and maintain such a relationship, is insufficient to overcome 

the history of abandonment in this case.” Id. at 73. 

However, Mother contends that Paternal Grandmother failed to meet her 

burden of proof. Mother’s Brief at 16. She asserts that Paternal Grandmother 

prevented her from maintaining a relationship with Children and denied her 

requests to see Children as recently as January 2018. Id. at 16-21. Mother 

alleges that Paternal Grandmother blocked her phone number and/or obtained 
J-S19032-19

- 8 -

a new phone number and failed to provide it to her. Id. at 19-21. She also

maintains that she contacted Father every day but that he refused to provide 

her with contact information for Paternal Grandmother. Id. at 16, 19-22. 

Mother insists that she did not know Paternal Grandmother’s street address, 

which prevented her from sending gifts or correspondence to Children. Id. at 

20. While she had been to Paternal Grandmother’s home in the past, she no 

longer remembered where it was located. Id. Finally, she accuses Paternal 

Grandmother of lying to Children “as to who their real Mother was.” Id. at 

21. 

Upon review, we find the record supports the conclusion of the orphans’ 

court that Mother refused or failed to perform parental duties during the six 

months immediately preceding the filing of Paternal Grandmother’s 

termination petitions in May 2018. As detailed above, Children began living 

with Paternal Grandmother in 2013. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 18-19. After 

December 2013, Mother had no contact with them at all. Id. at 20. Mother 

did not send Children cards, letters, or financial support. Id. at 20, 22.

Indeed, Mother testified that she made only one attempt to visit Children at 

an unspecified time in 2014. Id. at 47. Mother visited Paternal Grandmother’s 

home unannounced, but Paternal Grandmother never answered the door. Id.

Mother conceded that Paternal Grandmother did not appear to be home at the 

time and that her car was not outside. Id. at 47, 67. Paternal Grandmother 

testified that she never denied Mother contact with Children. Id. at 29. 
J-S19032-19

- 9 -

Nonetheless, Mother blamed Paternal Grandmother and Father for her 

failure to maintain a relationship with Children. She insisted that Paternal 

Grandmother blocked her phone number. Id. at 41. While Mother admitted 

that she knew the location of Paternal Grandmother’s residence, she claimed 

that she forgot the specific apartment number.5 Id. at 46-47, 67. Mother 

also claimed that she had been sending messages to Father using Facebook 

“every single day” since Children began living with Paternal Grandmother in

2013, inquiring about Children, requesting visits, and asking for Paternal 

Grandmother’s contact information.6 Id. at 43-44, 64. Mother maintained

that Father would respond by saying, “Oh, don’t worry about [Children]. 

They’re fine.” Id. at 43. According to Mother, Father also refused to allow

her to see Children because Mother was married, and he refused to provide 

her Paternal Grandmother’s contact information, saying “that he was not 

[Mother’s] secretary[.]” Id. at 44.

____________________________________________

5 Paternal Grandmother testified that she has lived in the same location for 

over twenty years, but that she changed her phone number “in the last year 

or so.” N.T., 9/14/2018, at 21. She explained that Mother knew where her 

home was located because Mother had lived with her before T.J.R. was born. 

Id.

6 Mother reported that she also attempted to contact Paternal Grandmother’s 

daughter on Facebook, but that the daughter “blocked me ... telling me that 

[Children] are not my concern.” N.T., 9/14/2018, at 45. Paternal 

Grandmother testified that she attempted to obtain Mother’s address “to sign 

the forms, because I was trying to get the consents” in January 2018. Id. at 

28. Mother recalled that Paternal Grandmother contacted her asking for her 

address and stated that she “told her no. I told her, if she allows me to see 

or talk to [Children], I would want to give her my address. She didn’t tell me, 

yes, you could see [Children], or anything.” Id. at 46. 
J-S19032-19

- 10 -

As this Court has explained, credibility and weight determinations are 

within the sound discretion of the orphans’ court. See In the Interest of 

D.F., 165 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“The [o]rphans’ [c]ourt 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.”).

Accordingly, the court was free to reject Mother’s testimony that Paternal 

Grandmother and Father had prevented her from performing her parental 

duties. Even if the court had accepted Mother’s testimony as credible, sending 

Facebook messages to Father by itself was not sufficient to preserve her 

parental rights. As stated above, case law requires that parents make efforts 

to resist obstacles limiting their ability to maintain a relationship with their 

children. B.,N.M., 856 A.2d at 855. Mother testified that she made no efforts 

to resist the obstacles in this case at all. Instead, she claimed that she 

persisted with the futility of sending Facebook messages to Father every day 

for nearly five years. We discern no abuse of discretion. 

Next, we consider whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion by 

terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to subsection 2511(b). The 

requisite analysis is as follows. 

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 
J-S19032-19

- 11 -

or her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) bestinterest 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).

The orphans’ court concluded that it would best serve Children’s needs 

and welfare to terminate Mother’s parental rights involuntarily so that Paternal 

Grandmother may adopt them. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 74. The court found that 

there was no parental bond between Children and Mother. Id. at 73. In 

addition, the court found that Paternal Grandmother provided Children with a 

safe and loving home, and that she was meeting Children’s needs, nurturing 

them, and preparing them for school. Id.

Mother asserts that termination of her parental rights would be contrary 

to Children’s needs and welfare because Paternal Grandmother does not 

facilitate contact between Children and Mother’s three other children, who are 
J-S19032-19

- 12 -

their siblings and/or half-siblings.7 Mother’s Brief at 17, 24. She further 

contends that the orphans’ court erred by concluding that she does not share 

a bond with Children because Paternal Grandmother prevented her from 

contacting Children and did not even tell them that she exists. Id. at 17, 23-

24. Finally, she alleges that Paternal Grandmother’s only motive to adopt 

Children is financial gain. Id. at 17, 24. 

We again discern no abuse of discretion. It is clear that Children do not 

share a significant parental bond with Mother. The last time Children saw 

Mother in 2013, T.J.R. was only two and a half years old, while T.R. was less 

than a year old. By the time of the termination hearing, T.J.R. was seven 

years old and T.R. was five and a half years old. See In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 

753, 764 (Pa. Super. 2008) (observing that the relationship between K.Z.S. 

and his mother “must be fairly attenuated,” given that K.Z.S. had been in 

foster care most of his young life, and that he had only limited contact with 

his mother during that time). Paternal Grandmother testified that Children do 

not ask for Mother and “don’t know to ask for her” because they do not know

that she exists. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 27-28. Mother acknowledged her lack of 

____________________________________________

7 Mother has five children in total, including Children. N.T., 9/14/2018, at 49. 

Mother’s youngest two children are Children’s half-siblings, as they are the 

children of Mother’s current husband, and not Father. Id. at 51. It is not 

entirely clear whether Mother’s oldest child is also the child of Father, although 

Paternal Grandmother’s testimony suggests that this is not the case. See, 

e.g., id. at 34 (“Then [Mother] was with another person. That’s when she 

had her oldest daughter.”).
J-S19032-19

- 13 -

a relationship with Children during the hearing when she expressed hope that 

Paternal Grandmother would “let [Children] know, when they get a little bit 

older, [that] I’m their mom and the reason why I couldn’t be there for them.” 

Id. at 54. Tellingly, Mother did not testify that she intended to resume caring 

for Children, but suggested instead that she should maintain her parental 

rights so that she can visit Children “once a year or whenever she allows me 

to see them[.]” Id. at 59. 

Mother also asserted that maintaining her parental rights would allow 

her to facilitate a relationship between Children and their siblings and/or halfsiblings. Id. at 61. While Mother is correct that sibling relationships may be

a relevant factor when assessing a child’s needs and welfare, Children’s 

younger half-siblings were born after Children began living with Paternal 

Grandmother, and Children have never met them. Id. at 51. Moreover, only 

T.J.R. has ever met Children’s older sibling or half-sibling, and that was 

approximately six years earlier when T.J.R. was a year old. It is doubtful that 

Children would be able to establish a significant relationship with their oldest 

sibling or half-sibling now, even if Mother were to retain her parental rights, 

given that the oldest child is not in Mother’s care, and that Mother visits her 

only sporadically. Id. at 49-50, 66 (Mother stating that she visited her oldest 

child twice during the last twelve months). Id. at 65-66. We conclude that 
J-S19032-19

- 14 -

terminating Mother’s parental rights would best serve Children’s needs and 

welfare.8

Based on the foregoing, the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion 

or commit an error of law by terminating Mother’s parental rights involuntarily. 

Therefore, we affirm the court’s September 17, 2018 decrees. 

Decrees affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/11/2019

____________________________________________

8 We discern no support in the record for Mother’s allegation that Paternal 

Grandmother wishes to adopt Children for financial gain. Mother appears to 

have based this claim entirely on Paternal Grandmother’s statement in her 

termination petitions that she “will receive full credits and benefits from Social 

Security pending adoption.” Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights (T.J.R.), 5/21/2018, at 1.