J-S18006-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF A.K.L, A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF D.D.L., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 334 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 27, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): 2021-00490

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 16, 2022

D.D.L. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered on January 27, 2022, 

which granted Mother’s petition for involuntary termination of Father’s 

parental rights to his minor son, A.K.L. (“Child”), pursuant to sections

2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. After 

careful review, we affirm. 

We glean the following facts and procedural history from the record. 

Mother and Father were married in June of 2014 and separated in June of 

2017. They are the natural parents of Child, who was born in August of 2016. 

During their marriage, Mother and Father resided in Florida. Shortly after 

their separation, Mother moved to York, Pennsylvania. On August 22, 2019, 

Mother remarried and moved to Elizabethtown in Lancaster County, 
J-S18006-22

- 2 -

Pennsylvania, with her new husband.1 Mother and Stepfather had a child, 

A.B.M., together in November of 2020. Father is not a United States citizen, 

and since separation from Mother, he has resided primarily with his mother 

(“Paternal Grandmother”) in Whitby, Ontario, Canada. Father is currently 

engaged to B.B. (“Father’s Fiancé”).

After their separation in 2017, Father threatened Mother that he would 

take Child and Mother would never see Child again. In response to Father’s 

threat, Mother immediately filed an emergency petition for custody of Child in 

York, Pennsylvania. A few months later, Father traveled to York to see Child, 

and he was served with the custody complaint. On April 13, 2018, after 

Father’s participation in the court proceedings regarding the custody action, a 

stipulated custody order was entered by the York County Court of Common 

Pleas. The custody order granted Father partial physical custody of Child one 

week per month in Canada with Mother present. 

On February 23, 2021, Mother filed a petition for adoption and 

involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights. Hearings were held on 

August 23, 2021, and October 25, 2021, at which Mother, Stepfather, Father, 

Father’s Fiancé, Paternal Grandmother, I.L. (“Paternal Great-Grandfather”), 

and Robert Cronin, Esquire, the court-appointed guardian ad litem (“GAL”) 

testified. Based on the foregoing testimony and the evidence produced at the 

hearings, the orphans’ court made the following additional findings of fact: 

____________________________________________

1 We refer to Mother’s spouse herein as “Stepfather.” 
J-S18006-22

- 3 -

Father saw ... Child during visits in Canada. The traveling time 

between Mother’s residence and Paternal Grandmother’s 

residence is about seven hours by automobile. When Mother 

brought ... Child to Canada for Father’s periods of partial physical 

custody, Mother and ... Child stayed at Paternal [Great-]

Grandfather’s residence and Father stayed at Paternal 

Grandmother’s residence. Father’s Fiancé was present for

Father’s periods of partial physical custody of ... Child. Father had 

no in-person visitation or contact with ... Child from October 2017 

until March 31, 2018, despite the fact there was a stipulated 

custody order in effect.[2] Father saw ... Child in April and May of 

2018. In July of 2018, Mother and Father agreed that Father’s 

periods of partial physical custody would alternate between 

Mother coming to Canada with ... Child and Father coming to 

Pennsylvania to visit ... Child. Father saw ... Child in August, 

September, and December of 2018. None of these periods of 

partial physical custody for Father were overnights with ... Child[,]

and the periods were for a duration of four to six hours. Mother 

spent every overnight with ... Child[,] and ... Child was never with 

Father [overnight] when Mother and ... Child were in Canada to 

facilitate Father[’s] seeing ... Child. Father never had a period of 

partial physical custody of ... Child for a full week. The longest 

period was for three days and that only occurred one time. Father 

did not engage ... Child during his periods of partial physical 

custody but[,] rather[, he] permitted ... Child to be around him. 

During Mother and ... Child’s visits to Canada, Father made no real 

effort to connect with ... Child. During Mother and ... Child’s visits 

to Canada, Father did not bother to see ... Child until 4:00 p.m. or 

5:00 p.m.[,] and then he would have dinner with ... Child and 

maybe engage in an activity. There were also times when Father 

was not present for dinner. 

From January 2019 through July 2019, Father had no in-person 

visits with ... Child. Father did have FaceTime calls twice a week 

with ... Child. In August of 2019, Mother and Stepfather discussed 

with Father the idea of Stepfather[’s] adopting ... Child. Father 

initially agreed, but then Father reconsidered and would not 

consent. At that time (August of 2019), Father told Mother that 

if she got married tomorrow, Stepfather could adopt ... Child. 

____________________________________________

2 Mother and Father entered a joint stipulation regarding the custody of Child 

on October 30, 2017. See N.T. Hearing, 8/23/21, at 234 (Father’s 

acknowledging his signing of an initial custody agreement, which was 

approved by the orphans’ court on October 30, 2017). 
J-S18006-22

- 4 -

Father changed his mind about relinquishing his parental rights 

because he did not realize his rights would be terminated. Father 

had suggested to Mother that he would come to Pennsylvania for 

the month of September 2019 to see ... Child[,] because he was 

going to be in Antigua for the winter months. Father never 

followed through with coming to Pennsylvania for the month of 

September 2019. From September 2019 through November 

2019, there was no in-person contact between Father and ... Child. 

The most recent in-person contact between Father and ... Child 

occurred on December 31, 2019. FaceTime calls between Father 

and ... Child occurred inconsistently two times per week until 

February 2020, at which time Mother and Father agree[d] to 

reduce the FaceTime calls to once per week. [] Child did not 

understand the purpose of the FaceTime contact with Father. 

Mother and Stepfather tried to make ... Child feel comfortable to 

engage in the FaceTime calls, but their efforts usually did not 

work. During the FaceTime contact, Father would talk “baby talk” 

to ... Child or turn the phone camera to the television to engage ... 

Child. [] Child never knew who the person on the other end of 

the call was during his FaceTime sessions with Father. In July of 

2020, Mother and Father agreed to end FaceTime contact due to 

Father’s sporadic involvement. Instead, Mother agreed that going 

forward, Mother would send Father monthly written updates 

regarding ... Child. Father agreed with Mother’s request to stop 

FaceTime contact between Father and ... Child in August of 2021[,]

because ... Child was hysterical. Mother is consistent in emailing 

monthly updates to Father about ... Child. Father has never 

responded to the monthly updates Mother sends to him with any 

questions about ... Child. Mother has always shared legal custody 

information about ... Child with Father. 

In August of 2020, Father announced to Mother that he would be 

coming to see ... Child for ... Child’s birthday. Mother made a 

dinner reservation for the August 2020 visit for ... Child’s birthday 

to include Father, but Father failed to appear. Father failed to 

come to Pennsylvania for ... Child’s birthday in August 2020[,] 

because, according to Father, the border authorities in Canada 

would not permit him entry into the United States ... due to Covid 

restrictions. If there is a child custody order and one must cross 

the U.S.-Canadian border to effectuate periods of physical 

custody, an individual was at all times permitted to cross the 
J-S18006-22

- 5 -

border during Covid restrictions....

[3]

 Father could have gotten a 

flight to Washington D.C. for $350 to come for the August 2020 

birthday visit.[4] [Instead,] Father sent a package full of 

inexpensive party favors for ... Child’s birthday. Father decided to 

attempt to fly to Pennsylvania from Antigua in December 2020. 

However, due to Covid restrictions, Father was unable to fly to 

Pennsylvania in December 2020. Father had no contact with ... 

Child for Christmas 2020.... 

Father did not attempt to book any flights to see ... Child from 

March of 2020 to the date of the first hearing in this case. Father 

did not pursue a contempt action against Mother for her not 

bringing ... Child to Canada from August of 2020 to February of 

2021. During this time[,] the Canadian border was open for child 

custody purposes. Father resided exclusively in Canada from 

January of 2020 to January of 2021. Father was in Antigua from 

January 3, 2021, until the end of March 2021. In April of 2021, 

Father went to Lisbon, Portugal, and stayed there for two months. 

Father was served with the termination petition on April 28, 2021. 

After Father was served with the petition to terminate [his] 

parental rights, Father served Mother with a petition to modify 

custody and for contempt of the custody order.... Mother has 

never filed against Father for child support. Father tried to pay 

support but claimed it is difficult. Mother has received child 

support from Father[,] but not on a consistent[] basis. Prior to 

Mother[’s] filing the petition to terminate Father’s parental rights, 

Father had paid a total of $600.00 to support ... Child over a period 

of two years. Father’s child support payments only became 

consistent after Mother petitioned for Father’s parental rights to 

be terminated. The payments came from Paternal Grandmother 

and not from Father. Father never contributed to medical, dental, 

____________________________________________

3 Father’s Fiancé testified that she took it upon herself to research online the 

rules regarding automobile travel between Canada and the United States and 

that the travel restrictions in place at the time provided for an exception in 

custody cases. See N.T. Hearing, 10/25/21, at 85-86 (“If you have 

documentation of custody[,] you’re able to cross the border.”). 

4 Father indicated that the border patrol informed him he could potentially fly 

into the United States, so he looked up the cost of flights to Washington, D.C.

on his phone. See N.T. Hearing, 8/23/21, at 189. See also id. (Father’s 

testifying that he “was told that actually we can’t go to Washington because 

it was dangerous, someone got shot”). 
J-S18006-22

- 6 -

or optical insurance for ... Child. As of the date of the first hearing 

in this case, Father was earning $7,200.00 per month. Father has 

a master’s degree in sports psychology. Father has worked for 

the NEAR Foundation[, a Swiss non-profit that is involved in 

blockchain,] since February of 2021.... According to ... Father’s 

Fiancé, as of October 2021, Father was applying to Temple 

University and was working on obtaining a student visa. 

Father routinely smokes marijuana. It is legal to do so in Canada. 

Father made promises to Mother to come and visit ... Child and 

then failed to appear for the visits. Father’s side of the family has 

historically been in and out of ... Child’s life. Paternal 

[G]randmother was abusive to Father. For this reason, Mother 

does not want ... Child to be alone with [P]aternal [G]randmother. 

Paternal [G]randmother has thrown hot pans across the room out 

of anger while ... Child was present. During the peak of the Covid19 pandemic[,] from March of 2020 until the August 23, 2021[] 

hearing, Father traveled frequently to Antigua and Portugal. 

Father never informed Mother of his travels. Mother found out 

about Father’s travels via social media. Father blocked Mother 

from his social media after Mother filed the petition to terminate 

his parental rights. Prior to the petition ... being filed, Father and 

Mother communicated via Facebook [M]essenger and email.... 

Father has sent packages to Mother’s address. Presently[,] Father 

and Father’s Fiancé reside in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where they 

are renting a two[-]bedroom apartment. Father never informed 

Mother that he ... relocated to Harrisburg.... 

Child was two years of age when Stepfather entered his life.... 

Father was always aware of Stepfather’s role as the father figure 

for ... Child. Father is grateful that Stepfather is present to be a 

father to ... Child. Stepfather works part-time and is able to 

perform many parental duties on behalf of ... Child. Mother and 

Stepfather’s family has [sic] dinner together a few times per week. 

The dinners include Stepfather’s extended family and Mother’s 

extended family. Stepfather believes it is important for ... Child to 

recognize him as his legal father because he is with him every day 

and he performs parental duties for ... Child. Father believes 

Mother is an amazing parent to ... Child. Mother and Stepfather 

do not disparage Father to ... Child. Mother and Stepfather are a 

very close family. They communicate well and focus on the two 

children in their home. 

In the past, Mother had a working cell phone number for Father. 

As of August 2021, Mother did not have a cell phone number for 
J-S18006-22

- 7 -

[him].... Mother knows Paternal Grandmother, Paternal 

Grandmother’s address, and has been to Maternal Grandmother’s 

residence. If Father’s parental rights are terminated, Mother 

would permit contact between the paternal grandparents and ... 

Child. Father’s family knows how to communicate with Mother. 

Father has known Mother’s address at all times since Father and 

Mother separated. Father had the ability to contact ... Child before 

and since the filing of the [termination] petition.... Father was 

aware that he was failing to establish a relationship with ... Child. 

Father has failed to demonstrate the stability necessary for ... Child 

to flourish. Father admits that his parenting is inadequate. Father 

admits that he was never with ... Child enough to be able to be a 

parent to [him]. Father has done nothing to improve his parenting 

for ... Child. Father never asked for additional periods of physical 

custody of ... Child or for his periods of physical custody to be 

unsupervised. There is no bond between Father and ... Child.... 

Father has had no contact with ... Child for a period in excess of 

six months preceding the filing of the [termination] petition..., nor 

has Father performed any parental duties ever. Father’s last 

physical visit with ... Child was [in] December of 2019[,] and his 

last communication with ... Child was [in] July of 2020. The [GAL] 

indicated that, due to the lack of time Father has spent with ... 

Child, there is no relationship with Father from ... Child’s 

perspective. [The GAL perceived] no harm to ... Child in severing 

the relationship that does not exist between Father and Child. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 3/22/22, at 5-18 (paragraph numbers and 

citations to record omitted; some paragraph breaks omitted). 

On January 27, 2022, the orphans’ court entered a decree granting 

Mother’s petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to Child 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b), and directing that the custody 

of Child remains with Mother and Stepfather. On February 24, 2022, Father 

filed a timely notice of appeal, along with a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Herein, Father presents the following questions for our review:
J-S18006-22

- 8 -

1. Whether the [orphans’] court’s decision to terminate Father’s 

parental rights is supported by clear and convincing evidence 

and did not constitute an abuse of discretion where: 

a. The evidence was insufficient to establish a failure to 

perform parental duties for a settled purpose of

relinquishing parental rights;

b. The court did not properly consider Father’s explanation for 

his conduct; 

c. The court did not have sufficient information as to the 

effects of the termination of Father’s parental rights on ... 

Child and the bond between ... Child and Father; and

d. The court did not properly consider the custodial parent’s 

deliberate creation of obstacles and erection of barriers by 

devious means to impede Father’s free communication and 

regular association with ... Child.

Father’s Brief at 4.

We review a decree terminating parental rights in accordance with the 

following standard:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental 

rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the 

trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse 

of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support 

for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial 

court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental 

rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the 

same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. 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 R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879 

A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:

The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as 

testimony that 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.” 
J-S18006-22

- 9 -

Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)). 

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 M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If 

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

the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

We are guided further by the following: Termination of parental rights 

is governed by section 2511 of the Adoption Act, which requires a bifurcated 

analysis. 

Our case law has made clear that under [s]ection 2511, the court 

must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental 

rights. 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 [s]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 [s]ection 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) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, 

other citations omitted). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear 

and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination 

of parental rights are valid. R.N.J., 985 A.2d at 276. 
J-S18006-22

- 10 -

With regard to section 2511(b), we direct our analysis to the facts 

relating to that section. This Court has explained that:

Subsection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental 

rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and 

emotional needs and welfare of the child. In In re C.M.S., 884 

A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), this Court stated, “Intangibles 

such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the 

inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child.” In addition, we 

instructed that the trial court must also discern the nature and 

status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect 

on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id. However, in 

cases where there is no evidence of a bond between a parent and 

child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. In re K.Z.S., 

946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 2008). Accordingly, the extent 

of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the 

circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 763.

In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). 

Instantly, we analyze the court’s decision to terminate under section 

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 
J-S18006-22

- 11 -

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 first address whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(1).

To satisfy [s]ection 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 C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 461 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Matter of 

Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)). In C.M.S., 

we further acknowledged the following statement by our Supreme Court:

There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental 

duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child 

needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, 

physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive 

interest in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt has 

held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires 

affirmative performance. 

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial 

obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a 

genuine effort to maintain communication and association with 

the child. 

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty 

requires that a parent ‘exert himself to take and maintain a place 

of importance in the child’s life[.’]

C.M.S., 832 A.2d at 462 (quoting In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 

1977)). 
J-S18006-22

- 12 -

Instantly, Father claims the evidence was insufficient to establish the 

orphans’ court’s finding of a failure to perform parental duties and/or a settled 

purpose of relinquishing parental rights, “because the court did not properly 

consider Father’s explanation for his conduct and did not properly consider the 

custodial parent’s deliberate creation of obstacles and erection of barriers by 

devious means to impede Father’s free communication and regular association 

with ... [C]hild.” Father’s Brief at 13. For instance, Father asserts that Mother 

attempted to prevent and/or limit his FaceTime communication with Child by 

denying him the ability to speak with Child if she felt the calls were too early 

or too late, if she was too busy, or if Child did not want to talk. Id. at 18-19. 

In July of 2020, Father alleges that Mother told him he was disrespecting Child 

and that she was not going to respond to any messages about him talking to 

Child, which he claims “made it impossible for him to communicate with ... 

[C]hild.” Id. at 19. Additionally, Father states that Mother insisted on being 

present for his custodial periods in contradiction with the custody order,

5 and 

that she refused his proposal to meet at a halfway point between York, 

Pennsylvania and Canada. To appease Mother, he agreed that his periods of 

physical custody would alternate between Mother and Child going to Canada 

and him traveling to Pennsylvania. Id. at 20.

____________________________________________

5 After Father’s initial visit with Child as outlined in the custody order, the 

order provides that “Mother’s presence is welcome, but not required” for 

Father’s future periods of partial physical custody. See Stipulated Order for 

Custody, 4/13/18, at 5 ¶A. 
J-S18006-22

- 13 -

Father insists that he exercised “reasonable firmness in overcoming the 

obstacles and barriers Mother put in place.” Id. at 22. He states that he 

continually voiced to Mother his request to speak with Child and that he even 

went as far as paying for Mother’s transportation costs to bring Child to 

Canada, even though the court order stated that transportation costs should 

be split. Id. at 21. He further claims that he wanted to resolve his custody 

issues with Mother without further court involvement, because he “had 

genuine concern for the health and wellbeing of ... [C]hild.” Id. at 22. 

Finally, Father argues that the orphans’ court failed to consider his 

explanation regarding his not being able to travel to visit Child in August of 

2020, due to Covid-19 restrictions. Id. In support of his argument, Father 

points to his testimony where he recalled attempting to drive from Canada but 

was turned around at the border. Id. (citation omitted). He further explains

that he chose not to fly because of the risk of exposure to the Covid-19 virus 

during a flight and that such exposure could put Child at risk. Id. 

Father has failed to convince us that he is entitled to any relief on this 

claim. Based on the following thorough and well-reasoned explanation in 

support of its decision to terminate Father’s parental rights under section 

2511(a)(1), we believe the orphans’ court carefully considered and properly 

weighed all the evidence presented at the termination hearings:

Father’s last physical contact with ... Child was in December of 

2019. Father’s last communication with ... Child was in July of 

2020. The six[-]month[] period preceding the filing of the petition 

ran from August of 2020 to February of 2021. It is undisputed 

Father had no contact during that period and consequently Father 
J-S18006-22

- 14 -

performed no parental duties. “Although it is the six months 

immediately preceding the filing of the petition that is most critical 

to the analysis, the court must consider the whole history of a 

given case and not mechanically apply the six-month provision. 

The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case 

and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing 

termination of his parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in 

light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the 

involuntary termination.” In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. 

Super. 2004), appeal denied, ... 872 A.2d 1200 ([Pa.] 2005) 

(citing In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999)[).]

A custody order was issued October 30, 2017, and subsequently 

a stipulation was issued on April 30, 2018, which granted Father 

one week of physical custody of ... Child per month in Canada with 

Mother present. Father saw ... Child in April, May, August, 

September, and December of 2018. Thereafter, there was one 

last contact on December 31, 2019. The record reflects that 

Father has never parented ... Child. Father’s off-sung refrain 

excusing his failure to exercise periods of physical custody was 

the Covid-19 restrictions resulting from the pandemic. But the 

record confirms that Father traveled to Antigua and to Portugal 

whenever called upon to exercise what was best for his personal 

interests while Father simultaneously ignored ... Child. Credibility 

is lacking in many aspects of Father’s testimony, but the August 

2020 border incident where Father claims he was turned away due 

to Covid restrictions is perplexing. Other testimony indicated that 

border crossings were consistently permitted where the purpose 

of travel was to effectuate child custody visitation. It was during 

that same time Father could have flown to Washington, D.C., to 

see ... Child, but he chose not to. The record supports a finding 

that Father chose a self-imposed estrangement from ... Child for a

period far exceeding six months and that Father neither asserted 

a parental claim to ... Child[,] nor did Father perform parental 

duties. 

As the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties 

and a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court 

must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation 

for his or her conduct; (2) the post abandonment contact between 

parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of termination 

of parental rights on the child pursuant to [s]ection 2511(b). In 

re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 ([Pa. Super.] 2008). 
J-S18006-22

- 15 -

Father suggests that Mother was on a path of parental alienation 

and prevented Father from seeing ... Child. In the event a parent 

sets up roadblocks for the non-custodial parent, the parent lacking 

custody must attempt to overcome any such impediments. “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.” In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 at 462 [](citing In re 

Shives, ... 525 A.2d 801 ([Pa. Super.] 1987)[)]. 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.

There is nothing in the record to show that Father used any of the 

means available to him to build and preserve his relationship with 

... Child. There was a custody order in effect, but Father did not 

seek to enforce the custody order except when he reacted after 

Father was served with the petition to terminate parental rights. 

After his separation from Mother, Father was supposedly going to 

Utah to live. That did not happen. Rather, Father moved to 

Canada and then pursued various endeavors in Portugal and in 

Antigua. He also pondered his gender identity and took up with a 

new paramour. Father focused solely on his personal needs while 

he neglected ... Child. “Parental duty requires that the parent act 

affirmatively with good faith intent 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.” 

See In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d [at] 855 ...[.] Father failed to even 

attempt to establish a parent-child relationship long before the 

advent of the Covid-19 pandemic and its resulting confusion and 

travel restrictions. 

Father alleges that the court erred in not properly considering 

Father’s explanation for his conduct in relinquishing his parental 

rights or in failing to perform parental duties. This is a nebulous 

and dubious claim. Father’s testimony was not credible. The 

Covid-19 restrictions did not present a roadblock preventing 

Father from being a parent. Father made no effort to be a parent 

before the pandemic began or since. Mother did not set up 

obstacles that prevented Father from seeing ... Child. Father 

exercised no diligence in attempting to see ... Child. As referenced 

above, Father focused on his own self-interest pursuits while he 

neglected his responsibilities to ... Child. 
J-S18006-22

- 16 -

OCO at 21-25 (some paragraph breaks omitted). After careful review, we 

conclude that the orphans’ court’s determinations are well-supported by the 

record, and we discern no abuse of discretion.

As for the analysis under section 2511(b), Father claims the orphans’

court lacked sufficient information as to the effects of the termination of his

parental rights on Child and the bond between Father and Child and, thus, it 

erred in finding that it was in Child’s best interest to terminate his parental 

rights. Father’s Brief at 23. He fails, however, to develop his argument. 

Father does not cite to a single case in support of his position. Moreover, he 

does not claim to have an emotional bond with Child, nor does he explain how 

the termination of his parental rights would negatively impact Child. Rather, 

he merely asserts that “in [M]other’s own statements,” she said Child knows 

Father, that Child sometimes addressed Father as “‘Dada,’ signifying some 

association to Father in ... [C]hild’s mind[,]” and that the orphans’ court failed 

to consider the FaceTime communication and visits Father had with Child in 

reaching its determination. Id. Thus, we deem Father’s claim regarding the 

orphans’ court’s findings under section 2511(b) to be waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a); Estate of Haiko v. McGinely, 799 A.2d 155, 161 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(“Without a reasoned discussion of the law ... our ability to provide appellate 

review is hampered. It is not this Court’s function or duty to become an 

advocate for the appellant.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Nevertheless, even if Father had not waived this issue, we would 

conclude that his claim is meritless. In support of its decision to terminate 
J-S18006-22

- 17 -

Father’s parental rights under section 2511(b), the orphans’ court emphasized 

that Child does not really know Father and concluded that “[i]f there is no 

bond, there can be no harm in severing something that does not exist.” OCO 

at 25. The GAL agreed that “Child does not know Father, thus there is no 

bond or relationship to be severed.” GAL’s Brief at 10. In addition, the GAL 

observed that “[i]n consideration of ... Child’s young age, the passage of time 

since ... Child had spoken to Father prior to the filing of the petition, and the 

parental relationship that ... Child has with Mother and Stepfather, there will 

be no disturbance to ... Child’s life or comfort by terminating Father’s parental 

rights.” Id. Finally, the orphans’ court noted that “[t]he only family ... Child 

knows is Mother and Stepfather and their families. All of ... Child’s needs are 

met in the home Mother and Stepfather provide. [] Child deserves to remain 

undisturbed with his family.” OCO at 25. 

As there is competent evidence in the record that supports the orphans’ 

court’s credibility and weight assessments regarding Child’s needs and 

welfare, and the absence of any bond with Father, we would conclude that the 

court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights under 

section 2511(b). See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 

2012) (stating that appellate courts must defer to the trial court regarding 

credibility determinations and weight assessment, so long as the factual 

findings are supported by the record and the court’s legal conclusions are not 

the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion). 
J-S18006-22

- 18 -

Accordingly, we affirm the decree involuntarily terminating Father’s 

parental rights to Child, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b). 

Decree affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/16/2022