J - S79031 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.M.C., a Minor

APPEAL OF: R.C., Father : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1178 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Decree Entered March 10, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP
- 51 - AP - 0000592 - 2015,

FID: 51 - FN - 000960 - 2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A.C., a Minor

APPEAL OF: R.C., Father : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1179 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Decree Entered March 10, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP
- 51 - AP - 0000591 - 2015,

FID: 51 - FN - 000960 - 2014 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2016 R.C. (“Father”) appeals the Decrees entered on March 10, 2016, granting the Petitions filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for the involuntary termination of his parental rights to his two children: M.M.C., a fem ale born in March 2006, and M.A.C., a male bornJ - S79031 - 16

- 2 -

in March 2011 (collectively “Children”), pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b). 1 We affirm. In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, which we adopt herein for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/18/16, at 1
- 3. On March 10, 2016, the trial court entered its Decrees granting DHS’s Petitions, and involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Childr en pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b). 2 On April 8, 2016, Father timely filed Notices of Appeal, along with Concise Statements of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.(a)(2)(i) and (b). This Court, sua sponte , consolidate d the appeals. On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review: Did the Court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion when it terminated [F]ather’s parental rights where [DHS] failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Father evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing [his] parental claim to

____________________________________________ 1 In its Decrees, the trial co urt also changed Children’s permanency goals to adoption, pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351. Father has not challenged this aspect of the Decrees, and any challenge to those rulings has been waived. See Krebs v. United Ref. Co. of Pennsyl vania , 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the statement of questions involved in his brief on appeal); see also Trial Court Op inion, 5/18/16, at 4.
2 On April 12, 2016, the trial court entered an Order confirming the consent by C.B., Children’s biological mother (“Mother”), to the termination of her parental rights to Children. Mother did not file an appeal, nor is she a party to the instant appeal.J - S79031 - 16

- 3 -

[C]hildren; and failed to present clear and convincing evidence that [C]hildren would not be harmed by [the] termination of [F]ather’s parental rights[?] Father’s Brief at 3. 3

[A]ppell ate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fac t 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. As has been often state d, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejud ice, bias, or ill
- will. ... [U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact
- specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child an d parents. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations an d judgment; instead we must defer to the trial judges 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. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 826
– 27 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).

____________________________________________ 3 Father stated his issue differently in his Concise Statement; however, we find it preserved for our review.J - S79031 - 16

- 4 -

Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Satisfaction of any one subsection of section 2511(a), along with consideration of subsection 2511(b), is suffic ient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( en banc ). In this case, we will review the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights based upon subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b), which state the following: (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 preced ing 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 m edical 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 in itiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and (b). Father initially contends that the trial court erred in finding that DHS presented sufficient evidence to support the termination of his paren tal rights under subsection 2511(a)(1). See Father’s Brief at 11. FatherJ - S79031 - 16

- 5 -

asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he exhibited a settled purpose to relinquish his parental rights. Id . at 12. Father claims that, prior to May 20 15, his only goal was to maintain communication with Children, and that he was fully compliant with this goal. Id . Father acknowledges that, in May 2015, the trial court added the goals of attending parenting classes, anger management classes and drug an d alcohol treatment, but argues that the Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”) 4 social worker assigned to the case, Lashana Kimbrough (“Kimbrough”), never checked to see if these programs were immediately available to Father, never asked the prison for Father’ s participation records, and never confirmed what work programs Father was participating in. Id . at 12 - 13. Father contends that, despite Kimbrough’s failure to confirm information vital to an assessment of Father’s goal compliance, the trial court nevert heless found Father to be minimally compliant with his goals on July 17, 2015. Id . at 13. Father asserts that, because DHS failed to communicate with the prison, it failed to show that Father had not complied with his goals. Id . Father claims that he u sed all available resources to preserve his parental relationship with Children while in prison, and the trial court erred by terminating his parental rights “almost exclusively” based on his imprisonment. Id
.

____________________________________________ 4 DHS implemented In
- Home Protective Services for Children through CUA.J - S79031 - 16

- 6 -

With respect to subsection 2511(a)(1), our S upreme Court has held as follows: Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform

parental duties or 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 Section 2511(b). In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M. , 708 A.2d 88, 92 (Pa. 1988). Regarding the termination of the parental rights of an imprisoned parent, our Supreme Court reiterated the standard of analysis pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1) for abandonment, noting that a parent has an affirmative duty to love, protect and support his child and to make an effort to maintain communicat ion and association with that child, and that a parent’s imprisonment makes the performance of this duty more difficult. See In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d at 828; see also In re Adoption of McCray , 331 A.2d 652, 655 (Pa. 1975). Our Supreme Court has fur ther stated the following regarding the parental obligations of an imprisoned parent: a parent’s absence and/or failure to support due to

incarceration is not conclusive on the issue of abandonment. Nevertheless, we are not willing to completely toll a pa rent’s responsibilities during his or her incarceration. Rather, we must inquire whether the parent has utilized those resources at his or her command while in prison in continuing a close relationship with the child. Where the parentJ - S79031 - 16

- 7 - does not exercise r easonable firmness in declining to yield to obstacles, his other rights may be forfeited. In re Adoption of McCray , 331 A.2d at 655 (footnotes, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, “incarceration neither compels nor precludes terminat ion of parental rights.” In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d at 828 (citation omitted). In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Father’s claim regarding subsection 2511(a)(1), set forth the relevant law, and determined that, during the six
- month period pre ceding the filing of the Petitions, Father had not successfully completed his goals. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/18/16, at 4 - 5. The trial court noted that Father has had no contact with Children or CUA since early summer 2015, has never reached out to CUA to arrange for visitation with Children, and has never met M.A.C. See id . at 5. The trial court further determined that Father has not been compliant with court Orders, had not utilized the resources available to him in prison to create and sustain a pa rent - child relationship with Children, and that Father’s own conduct had caused him to be placed in solitary confinement and to lose his phone privileges. Id. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we find the record supports the trial cour t’s factual findings, and its conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d at 827. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’sJ - S79031 - 16

- 8 -

termination of Father’s parental rights to the Children pursuant t o subsection 2511(a)(1). 5 Father also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the requirements of subsection 2511(b) had been satisfied. Father’s Brief at 16. Father contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the termination of his parental rights best serves Children’s needs and welfare, and that there was no relationship between him and Children that would cause Children to suffer irreparable harm if his rights were termina ted. Id. at 15 - 16. Father claims that he has been in regular contact with Children through telephone conversations and letters, and that Children are aware of their familial relationship with him. Id. at 16. Father complains that the CUA social worker did not speak with Children, or consider the importance that Children have a father figure in their lives, before reaching her conclusion that

____________________________________________ 5 As we have determined that the trial court di d not err in determining that the requirements of subsection 2511(a)(1) were satisfied, we need not address Father’s arguments regarding subsection 2511(a)(2). See In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d at 384 . Father also purports to challenge the termination of his parental rights under subsections 2511 (a)(5) and (8). See Father’s Brief at 11. However, Father’s brief includes no discussion of these subsections. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Moreover, the trial court did not base the termination of Father’s parental rights on either of those subsections. See Trial Court Decrees, 3/10/16, at 1 (basing the termination of Father’s parental rights on subsections 2511 (a)(1), (2) and (b)). Accordingly, we decline to address Father’s bald claim regarding subsections 2511(a)(5) and (8).J - S79031 - 16

- 9 -

Children would not suffer irreparable harm if his parental rights were terminated. Id. We have explained that, whereas t he focus in terminating parental rights under subsection 2511(a) is on the parent; under subsection 2511(b), it is on the child. See In re Adoption of C.L.G. , 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super 2008) ( en banc ). In reviewing the evidence in support of termination under subsection 2511(b), our Supreme Court has stated as follows: [I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re K.M. , 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa. Super. 2012). In In re E.M. , [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court held that the determination of the child’s “needs and welfare” requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond. In re K.M. , 53 A.3d at 791. In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). A parent’s abuse and neglect are likewise a relevant part of this analysis: concluding a child h as a beneficial bond with a parent simply because the child harbors affection for the parent is not only dangerous, it is logically unsound. If a child’s feelings were the dispositive factor in the bonding analysis, the analysis would be reduced to an exe rcise in semantics as it is the rare child who, after being subject to neglect and abuse, is able to sift through the emotional wreckage and completely disavow a parent .... Nor are we of the opinion that the biological connection between [the parent] and t he children is sufficient in of itself, or when considered in connection with a child’s feeling toward a parent,J - S79031 - 16

- 10 -

to establish a de facto beneficial bond exists. The psychological aspect of parenthood is more important in terms of the development of the ch ild and [his or her] mental and emotional health than the coincidence of biological or natural parenthood. In re K.K.R. - S. , 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); s ee also In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d at 267 (noting that that even the most abused of children will often harbor some positive emotion towards the abusive parent); In re K.Z.S. , 946 A.2d 753, 763 - 64 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming the involuntary termination of the mother’s parental rights, despite the existen ce of some bond, where placement with the mother would be contrary to the child’s best interests, and any bond with the mother would be fairly attenuated when the child was separated from her, almost constantly, for four years). Further, “a parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of ... [his] child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill ... [his] parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe envi ronment.” In re B., N.M. , 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Adoption of C.L.G. , 956 A.2d at 1007 (noting that a child’s life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that a parent will summon the ability to h andle the responsibilities of parenting). Here, the trial court credited the testimony of Kimbrough that Father and Children have no parent
- child bond and that there would be no irreparable harm to Children if Father’s parental rights were terminated.J - S79031 - 16

- 11 -

Se e Trial Court Opinion, 5/18/16, at 6; see also id . (wherein the trial court noted that Father has not seen M.M.C. in over six years and has never met M.A.C.). The trial court further determined that it would be in Children’s best interests to be adopted b y Children’s foster mother (their maternal great - grandmother), who has been a safe and permanent caregiver for them for the past two years, and who seeks to adopt them. Id . at 7. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we find that the recor d supports the trial court’s factual findings, and the court’s conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion with regard to subsection 2511(b). See In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d at 827. Accordingly, we affirm the trial cou rt’s determination that the requirements of subsection 2511(b) were satisfied. We, therefore, affirm the Decrees terminating Father’s parental rights with regard to Children under subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b). Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/19/2016P ag e I o f 7 

### Fac tu a ] a nd Pr oce dur a ] B ac k g r o und: T he fa mi l y in thi s case b eca m e kn ow n to OH S o n M ar c h 11 , 20 1 1 , w hen O H S r ece i ve d a Ge n e r al Pro t ecti v e Se rv i ce s (" O P S ") r e p ort th at C. B
. (" M o th e r ") ha d t e s t e d pos i ti ve for cocaine , op i at es, m eth ad o n e a n d b e n z o d i a z e pi n e s w h e n s h e g av e b i rth t o Ch i ld 2. OH S impl em e nt e d I n - Home Protecti v e S er v i c e s ( " IHP S " ) in th e h o me o f C .S., (" Fo s t e r M oth e r " ) the C h i ldren ' s mat ernal g reat g ra n dm o ther
. O n Mar c h 2 0 , 2 0 1 4 , OHS r ec eive d a O P S r ep ort that C h i l d 2 w a s ru nn i n g n ake d in a s up e rmarke t w hil e M o th e r w a s as l ee p in th e s t o r e . M oth e r c ould n o t be a wakene d, an d was taken t o th e Em e r g e n cy R oo m w h e r e s h e t e s te d p os iti v e fo r co c ai ne , op i ate s , m e th a do n e and be n zo d i az epine s . O H S i mp l e m e n t e d IH PS th ro u g h a Co mmun i ty U mb r e lla Ag en cy , ( "C U A " ) w h ich h e l d a S i n g l e Ca s e P l an ( " SC P ") mee tin g o n A p ri l 1 4 , 2 0 14
. T he g oal un d e r th e S C P was t o s t ab i lize th e fa mi l y. Fath e r wa s i n c ar c e rat e d , ha v in g p l e ad g u i lty to dru g - r e l at ed offe n s es o n Ja nu ary 2 3 , 20 0 4
. M oth e r le ft th e h o m e an d co u l d n o t b e l o c ate d by CUA. T he co urt a d j ud icated A pp e ll a nt R .C
. ( " F ath e r " ) ap p eal s fro m th e o r d e r e nt e r ed o n M ar c h 1 0, 20 1 6 , gran ti ng the pe ti ti o n fi l e d b y th e Ph i l a de l p hi a D e partme nt of H u m an S e rv i c es (" OHS " ) , to i n vol un tari l y term in at e F ath e r ' s p ar e nt al ri g ht s t o M .A.C
. ("C h i l d l ") and M.M. C. (" C hi l d 2") ("C h i l dr e n " ) pur sua n t to th e A d o p ti o n Ac t , 23 P a . C
. S
. A. § 25 1 l (a)( l ) , ( 2 ) a nd ( b)
. Jan i c e S u l ma n , E s q . , co u n se l fo r Fath e r , fil ed a tim e l y N o ti c e of Appeal w i th a St ate m e nt o f Matt e r s Co mp l ai ned of o n A p p e al p u rs u an t to Ru l e l 9 2 5 ( b ). 

### F e rnand e s, J .: 

### O P I N IO N 1 1 78 /1 1 79 E D A 20 1 6 A P PE A L O F : R. C
. , F ath e r FID : 5l

- F N

- 00 0960

- 2 01 4 In the I n t e r e s t o f M
. M
. C. , a Min or C P

- 5 l

- D P

- 000099 1

- 2 0 14 C P

- 51

- A P

- 00005 9 1

- 2 0 1 5 C P

- 5 l

- D P

- 0 0 0 0 9 92

- 20 I 4 C P

- 5l

- A P

- 0000 5 92

- 2 0 15 I n th e Int e r e s t o f M.A.C. , a Min o r



### IN TH E CO U RT OF CO

M MO N 

## PL EAS FOR TH E CO U NT Y OF PHIL

A D E L P HI A FA MIL Y CO U RT DI VI S IO N Circulated 12/02/2016 12:59 PMP a g e 2 of 7

T h e goal ch a n ge and t e rmin ati o n tri al was h e l d ove r t wo days, Janu ary 27 , 20 1 6 , an d Mar ch 1 0 , 2 0 1 6. O n J a nu ary 2 7, 2 0 16 , th e CUA soc i al wo rk e r t e s ti fi e d th at Fath er 's o bj e cti v e s u n der th e SC P we r e t o t ak e p ar e ntin g and an ge r m an ag e ment classe s , e n gage in dru g a nd alco h o l tr eatm e nt a nd m a int ain ph o n e co nt ac t with th e C hildr e n. (N. T. 1 / 2 7 / 16 , p g . 23 )
. F ath e r w a s in car cerat e d fo r dru g o ffen s e s , hi s minimum r e l e a s e d at e wa s J an u ary 20 17 , an d hi s m a x imum r e l ease d at e was A u gu s t 20 1 7
. ( N. T
. 1 /2 7 /1 6 , p g s. 2 3

- 2 4 , 39). F ath e r was i n " th e h c l e' ' - s o lit ary c o nfi neme n t - an d hi s ph o n e pri v ile ges w ere re voke d
. F ath e r s till oc c a s i o n a ll y m a int a in e d c o n tact w i th CU A a nd se nt th e C hildren l e tter s v i a C U A
. ( N .T . 1 / 27/1 6 , p gs. 5 , 26 , 4 6)
. T he pri s o n w h e r e F ath er i s in carc e rat e d o ffer s par e nting , a nge r man age m e n t and dru g and al co h o l p rogram s . CU A c o n tacte d th e s o ci al wo rk e r in the pri so n , w h o c o n fo m e d th at F ath e r h a d t aken ang er ma n ag e m e nt cl a ss e s in 2 01 2 , p ri o r to th e C hildren co min g i nt o car e . CUA wa s n o t abl e t o c onfi rm w h eth e r Fath e r co mpl e ted th e cl asse s. (N
. T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6 , pg s . 37

- 3 8 )
. Th e C U A soc i al w o rke r w as n o t ab l e t o c o nfi rm w hether F ather en g a ged in an y oth e r p rogram s . Th e p ri s on s oc i al wo rk e r in fo rm ed CUA th at F ather h a d " no engag e ment " s inc e 20 1 2
. (N
. T. 1 / 27 /1 6 , p g s. 25 , 3 8 )
. F ath e r wo rked in pri so n , but th e s oc ial w o rk e r did n o t kn ow w h at j o b Father wa s e mp l oy ed i n . (N .T
. 1 /2 7 / 1 6 , p g . 39 )
. Fath e r h a d b ee n fo und full y co mpli a nt in the p a s t o nl y b e cau s e h e h a d a s in g l e o b j e cti ve: t o m a int a in co n ta ct and make him s e lf kn o wn . (N .T
. 1/ 2 7 /16, p g s . 35

- 36 ). Fath e r h a s n eve r me t C h i l d 2. H e h a s ne v e r s et up a v i s it with th e C hildren at th e pri so n. (N
. T. 1 / 27/16 , pg. 4 5)
. T h e CUA s oc i al wo rk e r te s tifi e d th at th e r e wa s n o s trong bo n d b etw e e n F ath e r a nd th e C hildre n a nd th at th e r e wo uld b e 

### n o irr e p arable h arm 

### i f F ather 's ri g ht s were t ermin ated
. A goal of ado pti o n wo ul d be in the be s t intere s t of th e C hildre n . T h e C hildr e n are pla ced w ith F o s ter Moth e r , th e i r m at e rn al th e C h i ldre n dep e nd e n t o n M ay 2, 20 1 4 , fu ll y co mmi tting th e m t o OH S c u s tody an d p lacing th e m w i th F os ter Mother. A t an O c t o b er 2 8 , 20 14 , p e rm an e n c y r ev iew th e co u rt fo un d th at Fath e r had b e en full y c o mpli a nt with th e SC P , and wa s h av in g t w i ce - we e kl y ph o n e co nt ac t w ith th e C h i l dre n . F ather w a s fo u n d full y c o mpli a nt at F e bru ary 18 , 20 1 5 , and M ay 8 , 2015 , p erm an e n cy r ev i ew s . CU A was o rde re d t o m ake outr eac h t o Fath e r in pri s o n t o see w h at pro g r a m s h e wa s e n g aged w ith , a nd t o ex pl o r e v i s it s . Father was fo u n d minim al l y co mpl iant at a Jul y 1 7 , 2 0 1 5 , p e rm anency re v i ew and w a s o rd ere d t o h a v e te l ep h o n e c o n tac t w ith th e C hildr e n. P eti ti o n s to i n vo lu n t aril y termi nat e Fath e r 's paren t al rig h ts t o th e C hildre n an d c h ange th e perm an e n c y goal t o ad o pti o n we r e fil e d o n Au g u s t 1 3, 20 15
.

### P age 3 of 7 I Mo th e r ' s p ar e nt al ri g ht s we r e al s o i n vo l untari l y t e rmi n ate d , b ut Moth er h as n o t app eal ed. Discussion: Fath e r raises th e fo ll ow in g e rr o r s o n app eal : 

### 1
. Th e tri al co urt 

### e rr e d a s a m att er of l aw a nd abu se d i ts di sc re ti o n by t e rmin atin g Fath er ' s p ar e nt al ri g h ts w h e r e th e r e is no c lear a n d c onv in c i ng ev id e n ce th at Fath e r h a s e v i dence d a se ttl e d p urp ose o f r e linqui s hin g p ar e ntal claim to hi s c hil d o r h as r efu s ed o r fai l e d t o p erfo rm p ar e nt al d uti es. 2
. T h e tri al co urt e rr e d as a m att e r o f la w a nd ab u sed i ts di scre ti on b y te rmi n atin g Fath e r ' s pare ntal ri g ht s as ther e i s n o cle ar a nd co n v inc i n g evi d e n ce th at th e r e is co ntinu ed i n capa c ity , ab u se, ne g lec t, or r e fu sa l by Fath e r t o pare n t that h as cau s ed th e ch i ld to b e w ith o ut esse n ti al p ar e ntal care , co n trol o r s ub s i s t e n c e n ecessary for h is p h y s i cal o r me nt al we ll-b e in g n o r i s th e r e cl ear a nd co n vi n c in g evide n ce th at Fath e r c ann o t r emedy a n y co nditi o n s an d cau s e s o f the in cap a city, abu s e , n eg l e ct o r r e fu sa l. 

### 3. The tri al c o urt e rred as a m att e r o f la w a nd abu s e d its di sc reti o n b y t erm in ati n g F ath e r ' s par e nt al ri g ht s as th ere w a s i n suffic i e nt ev id e n ce p rese nt e d t o break th e bo n d th e c h i l d O n March 1 0 , 2 01 6, F ath e r 's co un s el in fo rm e d th e c o u rt th at F ather wo uld n o t t e s tify b y p h o n e; h e di d not wis h t o p arti ci p at e in th e hearin g . ( N .T. 3 / 1 0/ 1 6 , pg s . 5 , 2 7)
. The CUA social wo rke r testifi e d th at th e r e was n o b o nd be t w e e n th e C hildre n a n d Fath e r , so th e C hil dr e n wou l d s uffe r n o irre par abl e h arm i f Fath e r ' s p ar e ntal ri g ht s were te rm inate d. Fos t e r M o th e r provi d e s fo r a ll th e C hil dr e n ' s n e ed s, a nd h as a m at e rn al bo nd w i th th e C hildr e n . (N. T. 3 / 1 0/ 1 6 , p gs . 8- 9 )
. T h e co urt fo und cl ear an d co n v in c in g ev i de nc e to t e rmin at e Fath e r ' s p ar e nt al righ t s un der 23 Pa. C .S.A
. § 25 1 l (a ) ( l ) , (2) a nd ( b ). T h e co urt al so fo un d th at DHS h ad m ade r easo n ab l e effo rt s to r eunify th e C hildre n w i th F ather , and th at i t was in the b es t int e r es t of th e C hil dren to cha n ge th eir p e rm ane n cy goa l t o ad o p ti o n . (N .T
. 

### 3 / 1 0/ 1 6, p g s . 

### 30). O n A pril 

### 8 , 20 1 6 , Fath e r fi l ed th is app eal
. ' g r eat- gra nd mo th e r. Fos ter M o th e r i s a p re - adop ti ve reso ur ce . (N
. T. 1/27 / 1 6 , p g . 27). Th e C hildr en are b o nded with Fos t e r M o th e r , and s h e p rov id es for their n ee d s, in c ludin g th erapy and s chool. (N. T
. 

### 1 / 27 / 1 6, pg s . 

### 28-2 9, 33

- 3 4 )
. Th e 

### co urt d i d n o t r e nd er a deci s i on at thi s h eari n g , giv in g Fath er a n o th e r c h a n ce t o t e s ti fy b y ph o n e at th e n ext trial d at e. (N
. T. 1 / 2 7 / 16 , pgs . 8

- 9)
.P ag e 4 o f 7

Th e p e tition s fo r in v o lun t ary t e rminati o n we re file d o n Au g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 1 5
. F ath e r 's SCP o b j e c ti v e s we r e t o tak e p ar en ti ng a nd an ger m an ag ement cla s s es , e n g a ge in dru g a nd a lc o h o l tre atmen t an d maint a in co n tac t with th e C hildren. (N
. T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6 , p gs . 23 , 2 5). Th e C UA s oci al work e r te s ti fied th at th ese cla ss es w e r e a ll avail abl e t o Fath e r in pri s o n . Durin g the s i x -m o nth pe ri od pr e ced in g Father h as n o t app e al e d th e c h a n ge o f th e C hildren ' s p e rman e n c y goal t o ad o p ti o n , so h e ha s w ai ve d th e ri g ht t o appeal th e goal c h an g e . Fath e r h a s ap p eal e d th e i n vo lunt ary t e rm in atio n o f h i s p arental ri g ht s . Th e ground s fo r in v o lunt ary termi n atio n of p ar e nt al ri ght s ar e e n umerat e d in th e Adoption A ct at 23 Pa .C. S. A. § 25 11 (a ) , w hich p rov ide s th e fo ll owi n g gro und s fo r § 25 11 (a)(l ): (a) General ru

l e - Th e ri g ht s o f a p ar e nt , in r e g ar d t o a c hild , m ay be t e rminate d a ft e r a petiti o n i s filed o n an y of th e fo ll ow ing gr o und s : ( 1 ) Th e p ar e nt , b y c ondu ct c o ntinuin g fo r a p e riod o f at l ea s t s i x m o nth s i mme di at e l y prec e din g the filin g o f the petiti o n , ha s ei th e r ev id e n ce d a s e ttl e d purp o s e o f r e linqu is hi ng par e nt al claim t o a c hild o r h a s r e fu se d o r failed t o p er form pare n t al dutie s. In proc ee din gs t o in v o luntaril y t e rmin at e par e nt al ri g ht s th e burd e n of p roo f i s on th e party seeki ng t e rmination , which must es tabli s h th e e x i s t e n ce o f g round s fo r t e rmin ati o n b y cl ear and co n vi n c i ng ev id e nce . In re A d

o p t i o n o f Ate n c i o , 650 A. 2 d 10 6 4 ( P a . 1 994 )
. T o s ati s f y s e cti o n (a ) (l ) , th e mo v in g party mu s t p ro duc e cle ar a nd co n v in ci n g e vid e n ce o f co nd u c t s u s t a ine d fo r at l ea s t s i x m onth s pri o r t o th e filing o f the t e rmination p e titi o n , w hi c h r e v eal s a s e ttl e d in te nt t o r e linqui s h p ar e ntal claim t o a child or a r e fu s al o r fa ilure t o p e rf o rm par e nt al d uti es . H o w e v e r , th e s i x - mo nth tim e p e ri o d s h o uld not be applied m e ch a nicall y ; in s tea d , th e 

### c o urt mu s t co n s ider th e w h o l e hi sto ry o f th e ca s e. I

n re B
. N M , 85 6 A.2 d 84 7 , 85 5 ( P a . Supe r. 2 004 )
. T h e s t a ndar d of c l ear a nd c o n v in c in g e v id e nc e i s defin e d as t es timon y th at i s s o cl ear , dir ec t w e i g hty and c on vi n c in g as t o e n able the tri e r o f fact t o come t o a cle ar c o n v i cti o n w ith o u t h es it an ce of th e tru th o f p r e c i se fact s in is s ue . A par e nt ' s in c arcerati o n d o e s not preclu d e t e rminati o n of p ar e nt a l ri g ht s if the incarcerated par e nt fail s t o utili ze the g i v en re s o ur c e s a nd t o tak e a ffirmati ve s t e p s t o s u p po rt a parent- c hild rel ati o n s hip
. I n re D.J. S.
. 737 A. 2 d 2 8 3 ( Pa
. Su pe r . 1 99 9 )
. s har e d w ith F ath e r wh e re th e r e w a s not c l ear a nd co n v incin g e v id e n ce th at th e c h i l d wo uld
n o t be h arm ed b y th e terminati o n 4
. T h e tri al c o urt e rr e d as a matt e r o fla w a nd ab u s ed i t s d i s cre ti o n w h e n i t termin at e d F ath e r 's par e ntal ri g ht s .P a g e 5 of 7

Father h as de m o n s trat e d a p att ern of n o nin vo l ve m e nt wi th th e C h i ldr e n a nd n on c ompli an ce wi th hi s S C P o bje cti v e s a nd c o urt ord e r s . Fath er h as n o t e n gag e d i n a n y par en tin g , an ger manag e m e nt or dru g an d a lc o hol pro gra m s s in ce th e s tart of thi s ca se , e v e n th o u g h th e s e p ro g r a m s w e r e a ll avail abl e t o hi m i n p ri s on. (N .T. 1 / 27 /1 6 , pg . 25 )
. Fath e r n e v er t oo k an y s tep s t o arra n ge v i s its w ith th e C hildr e n w hil e in pri so n . (N.T. 1 / 27/16, p g s . 2 7 , 45 )
. A s a res ult of Fath e r ' s r efu s al to parent , C hild 2 h as ne ve r ev e n m e t Fath e r in pe r so n . 

### (N .T. 1 / 27/16, p g. 27 ). At th e s t art of thi s ca s e Father wa s abl e to maintain ph on e co nt act wi th th e Chi l dre n , but s in ce s umm er o f 2 015 , hi s T he tri a l co u rt al so t e rminate d Fath e r ' s p ar e nt al rig ht s un d er 23 P a . C.S
. A. §2 5 1 1 ( a ) (2 )
. This s ec ti o n of th e Ad o pti o n Ac t inclu de s , a s a gro und fo r i n vo l untary te rmin atio n o f paren t al right s , th e r e p eate d a nd co ntin ue d in cap aci ty , ab u s e , n eg l ec t o r r efu s al of th e p ar ent that c au s e s th e c h il d t o be with o ut ess enti al parental car e , co ntr o l or s ub s i s t e nc e n ec e s sary for hi s p h ysi c al o r men t a l we ll-b e in g ; a nd th e c o nditi o n s and cau s es o f the i n cap a ci ty, ab u s e , neg l ec t o r r e fu s al ca nn ot o r w i ll n ot b e r e m e died b y the p ar e nt. T hi s gro u n d i s n o t limit e d to a ffirmati ve mi s c o n du c t. It may in c lud e a c t s o f r efu s al to p e r form p ar e nt al du tie s , b u t fo c u s e s more s pec i fica ll y o n th e n e e d s of the c h ild
. Ado p ti o n o ( C. A
. W

, 683 A.2 d 9 11 , 9 14 ( P a . Su p e r. 1996 )
. th e fi lin g o f th e p e titi o n s , Fath e r h a s no t s u cce s s fu ll y c o mp l e t e d a n y o f th ese p r o gram s. Looki n g b eyo n d th e si x -m o nth p e ri od, th e p ri s o n s oc i al worker informed C U A that Father h a d h a d " no e n ga g e m e n t " s in ce 20 12 , two year s b efo r e th e C hildr e n ca m e int o care . (N 

### .T. 1/ 2 7 

### I 1 6
. pg s. 2 5 , 3 8 )
. T h e co urt h eard t e s ti mo n y th at Fath er t o o k an ge r managem e n t in 

### 20 1 2 , but no t w h e the r h e c o mpl e t ed i t. (N. T. 1/ 2 7 / 1 6, p gs . 37

- 38)
. Fath e r ' s o nl y oth e r o bj ec ti v e wa s to m ai nt ai n p h one co n tac t w ith th e C hildr e n . Fath e r , b y h i s ow n co nduct , ha s bee n p l ace d in s o lit ary co nfi neme n t a nd l os t hi s p h o n e p ri v il e ges. H e h a s h ad n o ph o n e contact wi th th e C hildr en or C UA s ince earl y s umm er 20 1 5. (N
. T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6 , p gs. 26 , 4 6)
. Fath e r se n t C U A l etter s , but o nl y s p orad i call y . (N .T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6 , p g. 41 ). H e h a s n eve r r ea c h e d o u t to CU A t o s e t u p v i s it ati o n with th e C h i l dren , an d h a s ne ver even met C hild 2
. ( N
. T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6, p g. 2 7 , 4 5)
. Thro u gho ut th e li fe of thi s case Fath er ha s n ever b ee n co mpliant w i th co urt o rd e r s. He h a s n ot u ti l i z ed th e 

### r e s ource s a v ai l abl e to hi m in pri s o n to c r e at e an d s u s t ain a pare nt- chil d r el atio n s hip
. A s a re s u lt th e tri a l court d id n o t abu se it s d isc r e ti o n b y findin g clear a nd co n v in c i ng ev i de n ce th at F ath er , b y h i s c o n d u c t, h a d r efu se d and fail ed t o p e r fo rm p are nt al du ti e s un de r Secti o n 25 11 (a) (l ) , s o te rmi nati o n u n der thi s s ecti o n wa s prop e r.P a g e 6 o f 7

T h e C U A so c i al wo rke r t e s ti fie d th at Fath e r and th e C h il dre n h a v e n o pat e rn al b o n d
. Fath e r h as n o t see n Ch i ld 1 in ove r s i x y ear s an d h as n e v er m e t C h i l d 2 i n p e r s o n . (N
. T
. 1 /2 7/16 , p g . 27), (N. T. 3 / 10/ 1 6 , p g . 9)
. F ath e r h a s n e ve r att e mp t ed t o arran g e v i s it s with the C h i l dren
. (N. T
. 1 /2 7 / 1 6 , p g s. 2 7, 4 5)
. Fath e r l o s t hi s ph o n e a c ce ss in th e e arl y s u mme r of 20 1 5 , an d ha s c ommun icat ed w ith th e C hi l dr en b y m ail s i n c e . (N.T
. 1 / 27 / 1 6, pg s. 5, 2 6 , 4 6). T h e CUA soc i a l
w o rk er t es ti fi e d that th ere w o ul d b e n o irr eparab l e harm i f F ath e r 's p ar e n t al ri g h t s we r e te rmin at e d
. Aft er a findin g of an y g ro un d s fo r termi n ati o n u nd e r Sec tio n (a), th e co u rt mu st , u nder 23 Pa .C. S
. A. § 25 11 ( b ), al so c on s id e r wh at - i f an y - b o n d ex i s t s be t wee n p aren t a nd c h i ld
. I n re I nvolu nt a r y Te rmin a t i on of CW.SM. a nd K. A .l. M
. 8 39 A.2 d 4 10 , 4 15 ( P a . Sup er. 2003). T h e tri al c o u rt mu s t exam in e th e s tatu s o f th e b o nd t o det e rmi n e w h e th e r it s t ermin ati o n "wou ld d es troy an e x i s ti n g , ne ce s sary an d b en e fi c i al r e l ati o n s h i p "
. 

### I n re 

### Adop t ion o(TB. B. 8 3 5 A
. 2 d 3 8 7, 397 ( P a. S u p e r . 200 3). ln a s s ess i n g th e par e nt al b o n d , th e tri al co urt i s pe rmi tt e d t o r e l y u p on th e o b s erv ati o n s an d ev a lu ati o n s of s oci al w o rke r s. I n re K. Z.S.
. 9 4 6 A
. 2 d 753, 7 62

- 7 63 ( P a. S up e r. 2 0 0 8)
. I n c a s e s w h e r e th ere i s n o e v id e n ce of an y bo n d b etwe en th e p are nt an d c hil d , it is r e aso n ab l e t o in fe r th at no bo n d e x i s t s. T h e ext ent of an y b o n d anal ys i s d e p e nd s o n th e c ir c u m s tan c e s o f th e particu l ar case. In re K. Z.S. at 762

- 763. H ow e ve r under 23 Pa .C. S .A. § 2 5 I I ( b ) , th e ri g ht s o f a pare nt s h a ll n o t be t e rmin ate d so l e l y o n th e ba s i s of e n v i ro nm e n tal fac t o r s s u c h a s i nade qu ate h o u si n g, fu rn i s h in gs, in c o m e, c l o th i n g and m e dical , i f fo und t o b e b eyo n d th e co ntro l of th e p ar e n t. o w n con du c t h as pl ace d hi m i n so lit ary c o n fi n e m e nt w i th o u t a c c ess t o a ph o n e . (N
. T. 1/ 2 7/16, p gs . 

### 5 , 2 3

- 2 4 ). Fath e r wro t e t w o l ette r s t o th e C h il dr e n o n l y v i a th e CUA
. (N .T
. J/ 27 / 1 6 , pg. 

### 41 )
. W h e n g i v en th e o pp o rtun ity b y th e co urt , Fath e r d i d n o t w i s h t o p artic ip at e in th e h earin g , o r be pr e s e nt b y p h o ne a s e x p l a in ed b y Fath er ' s c o u n se l. (N.T. 3 / 1 0/1 6 , p gs. 5 , 2 7). T h e C h il dr e n h ave b ee n in c ar e s i n ce May 2, 2 01 4
. D u rin g th at ti m e, Fath er h as fai l ed t o t ake a ffi rm ati v e s t e p s t o p l ac e h i m se l f in a po s i ti o n to p ar e n t th e C h i ldr e n . Fath er w i ll n o t e v e n b e e l igi b l e fo r r e l ease u n ti l Ja n u ary 2 0 1 7
. (N
. T. 1/ 27 /16, p g . 39). F ath e r's fai l ur e to co mpl y w i th c o urt o rd e r s s h ows th at Fath e r wo u l d b e un abl e t o r e m e d y th e cau ses o f h i s i ncap a c ity i n o r de r t o pr ovi d e th e Chi l dr e n w ith e sse nti al p are n t al car e, co n tro l o r s ub s i s t e n ce n ece ssary fo r the ir ph ys i c al and m ental we ll b e i n g . T h e C hildr e n n ee d p e rm anen cy, w h ich Fath e r c ann o t p rov i d e . T e rm in ati o n u n de r S ec ti o n 25 I I ( a )( 2 ) w a s p rop e r.P age 7 of 7

Co nclu s i o n: Fo r th e afo r e m enti o n ed r easo n s , th e court found that DH S met its s t atut ory bur d en b y cle ar and
co n v in c in g ev id e n ce re gar din g t ermi nati o n of Fa th e r 's paren t al right s p u r s u an t to 23 P a . C. S .A
. §25 11 ( a ) (1 ), ( 2) an d ( b) si n ce i t wo ul d b es t se r ve th e Chil dr en ' s emo tiona l need s and welfare. The tri al court ' s terminatio n of Fath e r ' s parental righ t s was p roper and s h o u l d be affirmed
. 

### (N. T
. 1 /27 / 1 6, pg. 

### 27) , (N. T
. 3 / 10/ 16 , p g . 

### 8 )
. I t wo u ld b e in the Childre n ' s best intere s t t o be ado p te d b y F oste r Mothe r . (N. T
. 1/27/16, pg. 27). F os t e r Mo ther an d th e Chi l dren ha v e a parent c hild bo n d, a nd s h e car es for thei r daily n ee d s , i ncl ud in g th e rapy a nd sc h oo l. F os t e r Mo ther has b een a safe and p erm anent caregive r fo r the Children for tw o y ears , and s eeks to adopt them
. (N
. T
. 1/27 / 16 , pg s . 2 8

- 29 , 33

- 35) , (N. T
. 3 / 1 0/ 16 , pgs . 8- 9)
. Conseque ntl y , the court did n o t abu s e its discre tion w h en it foun d that it was cl e arl y and convinc i ngl y es t ablis h ed that th er e wa s no p are nt al b o nd , a nd th at te rmin ati o n of F ath e r 's pare n tal rig h t s wo ul d no t d e s tro y an exis ting bene fi cial
re l ati o n shi p .