J-A08009-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF Z.K.S.I.

APPEAL OF: E.K.I., SR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1150 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 27, 2021

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

No(s): 2020-720

IN RE: ADOPTION OF E.K.I., JR.

APPEAL OF: E.K.I., SR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1151 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 27, 2021

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

No(s): 2022-722 IVT

ADOPTION OF: U.Z.M.I.

APPEAL OF: E.K.I., SR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1152 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 27, 2021

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

No(s): No. 2020-721 IVT

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
J-A08009-22

- 2 -

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: APRIL 27, 2022

E.K.I., Sr., (“Father”) appeals from the decrees entered on August 27, 

2021, that granted the petitions filed by the Cambria County Children and 

Youth Services (“CYS”) to involuntarily terminate his parental rights to three 

children, twins Z.K.S.I. and U.Z.M.I. (born in December of 2019) and E.K.I., 

Jr. (born in June of 2016) (“Children”).1 After review, we affirm. 

Father previously filed an appeal following the trial court’s orders 

changing the Children’s goals to adoption. We rely on this Court’s 

memorandum for an overview of the facts found by the trial court.2 

The record reveals that [CYS] obtained protective custody 

of E.I., Jr., on July 26, 2019, prior to the births of U.I. and Z.I. 

The juvenile court entered an order memorializing E.I., Jr.’s[]

placement on July 30, 2019, and CYS filed a shelter care 

application that same day. In its application, CYS averred that 

Mother left E.I., Jr., under the supervision of an older half-sibling, 

who threw E.I., Jr. Mother did not seek medical attention for E.I., 

Jr., resulting in a charge of endangering the welfare of children 

and a child abuse investigation. CYS further averred that Father

was facing a child abuse investigation for allegedly striking and 

bruising the older half-sibling, and that there were reports of 

domestic disputes between Mother and Father. CYS filed a 

dependency petition on August 2, 2019, in which it raised 

concerns identical to those in the shelter care application. The

court entered a shelter care order on August 5, 2019, and 

adjudicated E.I., Jr., dependent by order entered August 20, 

____________________________________________

1 The parental rights of Children’s mother, B.S., (“Mother”) were also 

terminated. Mother has filed a separate appeal to this Court. See 1114 WDA 

2021. 

2 The memorandum opinion quoted here identifies the Children only by their 

first and last initials and omits the initials for their middle name(s), which we 

have included. 
J-A08009-22

- 3 -

2019. The court designated his permanent placement goal as 

return to parent or guardian.

CYS obtained protective custody of U.I. and Z.I. shortly after 

their births, and on January 13, 2020, filed petitions for 

dependency. As to Father, CYS averred that his home was 

inappropriate, and that Mother had reported he was drinking 

heavily and being verbally abusive toward her. CYS further

averred that Father had not completed his court-ordered domestic 

violence program, and that he was subject to a Protection From 

Abuse (“PFA”) order from January 2019 until July 2019, because 

of domestic disputes with Mother. On January 23, 2020, the court 

adjudicated U.I. and Z.T. dependent and established their 

permanent placement goals as return to parent or guardian. 

Beginning with the adjudication of E.I., Jr., and continuing 

with the adjudications of U.I. and Z.I., the juvenile court ordered 

Father to cooperate with service providers and complete certain 

objectives. Father’s objectives included completing a domestic 

violence program, submitting to random drug screens, and 

completing drug and alcohol treatment, among others. Father

failed to cooperate with the service providers, and the juvenile 

court found that he was in minimal compliance with the family 

service plan and had made minimal progress toward reunification. 

On August 13, 2020, the court scheduled a hearing to 

consider whether to change the permanent placement goals for 

E.I., Jr., U.I., and Z.I. from return to parent or guardian to 

adoption. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court announced 

that it would change the [C]hildren’s goals. It entered goal

change orders on August 20, 2020....

In the Interest of: Z.I., Nos. 964, 965 and 966 WDA 2020, unpublished 

memorandum at 1-3 (Pa. Super. filed March 12, 2021) (footnotes omitted). 

As noted above, E.K.I., Jr.3 was removed by Emergency Shelter Order 

and was determined to be dependent. In January of 2019, a PFA was issued

due to domestic disputes. Father was drinking heavily and no supplies existed 

____________________________________________

3 Older children were also removed from Mother’s care at the same time. 
J-A08009-22

- 4 -

in the home for the arrival of the twins. Following the birth of the twins, they 

were removed from Mother and Father’s custody and were deemed dependent 

children. After subsequent permanency review hearings, both parents were 

found to be minimally compliant, making minimal progress toward alleviating 

the circumstances necessitating the original placements. At the time of the 

goal change hearings, the trial court found that Father had failed to maintain 

sobriety and was unsuccessfully discharged from drug and alcohol treatment. 

The parents continued to be involved in domestic disputes. Father also failed 

to maintain a stable residence, which resulted in his being homeless. 

Additionally, in connection with the goal change, the trial court found:

15. The findings of the Juvenile Court at the May 26, 2020 

Permanency Review Hearing showed that Father had not met his 

burden. That [c]ourt found that there had been no compliance 

with the permanency plan in that [Father] had not had contact 

with the [C]hildren in over six months. Further, there had been 

no progress by him towards alleviating the circumstances which 

necessitated the original placement. The [c]ourt further found 

that aggravated circumstances existed as to [Father] ... and he 

failed to maintain substantial and continued contact with the 

[C]hildren for a period of six months. The [c]ourt further found 

that [Father] was no longer a placement option for the [C]hildren.

Trial Court Final Decree, 8/27/2021, at 8 ¶15. 

On October 1, 2020, CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate the 

parental rights of both Mother and Father to the three Children pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (5). In the context of the termination hearing, 

the court noted statements by a CYS caseworker that 

[Father] demonstrated that his [C]hildren were not his priority 

within a week prior to the goal change hearing. Within that one 
J-A08009-22

- 5 -

week, the Agency received reports of [Father’s] drinking, police 

reports of domestic disputes, and [Father] did not go to work all 

week.... No one disputes that [Mother] and [Father] love their 

[C]hildren. As observed through visitation with the [C]hildren, 

neither parent present[s] a nurturing bond to their [C]hildren.

Though [E.K.I., Jr.] has a relationship with both [Mother] and 

[Father], he, as well as the twins, do not have that parent-child 

bond with either of them. [All three Children] have a genuine 

bond with their foster family, which demonstrates that they will 

be able to build a healthy bond with their adoptive family.

Id. at 10 ¶ 19. Another CYS social worker indicated that:

[Father] has not demonstrated stability in a lifestyle that 

would be conducive to reunification.... He is not forthcoming with 

information with his social worker and verbalizes his belief that 

appropriate boundaries are already in place. It is this social 

worker’s opinion that [Father] would have to become more 

forthcoming with the information he provides during sessions. He 

would need to address any drug and alcohol issues and 

consistently maintain his mental health prior to the consideration 

of reunification. 

Id. at 10 ¶ 20. The court also found that the termination of any bond between 

Father and the Children would not detrimentally affect them. 

Therefore, based on the facts presented, the trial court concluded that 

CYS had met its burden of proof that Father’s parental rights to the three 

Children should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) (1), (2) and 

(b). Father then filed a timely appeal to this Court, raising the following 

issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the agency had met 

its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence[?] 

2. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion in making 

the determination to terminate the Father’s rights to his children, 

Z.K.S.I., E.K.I., JR., and U.Z.M.I.[?]

Father’s brief at 4. 
J-A08009-22

- 6 -

We review an order 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.” 

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. 
J-A08009-22

- 7 -

Our case law has made clear that under Section 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 Section 2511(a). Only if the court 

determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his 

or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of 

the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the 

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

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

concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between 

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

of permanently severing any such bond. 

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

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). 
J-A08009-22

- 8 -

As noted above, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights 

pursuant to section 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b). We need only agree with the 

trial court as to any one subsection of section 2511(a), as well as section 

2511(b), in order to affirm. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 

2004) (en banc). Here, we analyze the court’s decision to terminate under 

sections 2511(a)(2) 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:

***

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or 

refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential 

parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or 

mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, 

abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the 

parent.

***

(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 

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)(2), (b).
J-A08009-22

- 9 -

We first address whether the trial court abused its discretion by 

terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(2).

In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 

2511(a)(2), the following three elements must be met: (1) 

repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) 

such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child to 

be without essential parental care, control or subsistence 

necessary for his physical or mental well-being; and (3) the 

causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will 

not be remedied.

In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation 

omitted). “The grounds for termination due to parental incapacity that cannot 

be remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct. To the contrary, those 

grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental 

duties.” In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations 

omitted). 

Father’s brief contains a discussion of the law referencing subsection 

2511(a), however, he notes that although CYS had been involved with Mother 

since 2008, his involvement was only initiated at the time of E.K.I., Jr.’s 

removal in July of 2019. He acknowledges his failures to meet some of CYS’s 

requirements for reunification with the Children, but blames Mother for his 

troubles, identifying the PFA obtained by Mother and the criminal charges filed 

against him resulting in his incarceration from the fall of 2020 until February 

2021 and from June of 2021 to August of 2021, as the reason. Father also 

contends that Mother’s extensive history with CYS impacted the perception of 
J-A08009-22

- 10 -

his efforts. He also notes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and blames 

CYS for his lack of contact with the Children, resulting in a finding of 

aggravating circumstances, because CYS failed to return his phone calls and 

respond to his requests to see the Children. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that it supports the findings of 

the trial court that Father has not provided the Children with the essential 

parental care, control and subsistence necessary for their mental and physical 

well-being, and that Father is unable or unwilling to remedy the causes of his 

parental incapacity, neglect or refusal. While the trial court noted Father’s 

few positive accomplishments, it is clear that Father will not, or cannot, 

become a capable parent for the Children at any point in the foreseeable 

future. Thus, we conclude that CYS has carried its burden of proving the

statutory grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a)(2). Therefore, 

Father is not entitled to relief. 

Lastly, we recognize that Father has not provided any argument relating 

to subsection 2511(b). However, the trial court determined that the 

termination of Father’s parental rights would not have a detrimental effect on 

the Children. Rather, Father’s lack of visitation with E.K.I., Jr., undermined 

any bond that might have existed. Furthermore, the court found that a bond 

exists between the Children and their foster family. Therefore, the termination 

of Father’s parental rights would not irreparably harm the Children. 

Accordingly, Father is not entitled to relief.
J-A08009-22

- 11 -

Decrees affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/27/2022