J-A30043-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.O.R. AND 

M.M.R., MINOR CHILDREN

APPEAL OF: O.R., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 808 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree April 13, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Orphans’ Court at Nos: 83862, 83863

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2016

O.R. (“Father”) appeals from the decrees entered April 13, 2016, in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, that involuntarily terminated 

his parental rights to his minor son, E.O.R., born in October of 2008, and to 

his minor daughter, M.M.R., born in July of 2011 (collectively, “the 

Children”).1 After careful review, we affirm.

The orphans’ court summarized the factual and procedural history of 

this matter as follows. 

This family came to the attention of [Berks County 

Children and Youth Services (“BCCYS”)] []as the result of two 

reports in the two days following M.M.R.’s birth in July 2011 and 

____________________________________________

1 The orphans’ court entered separate decrees terminating the parental 

rights of the Children’s mother, A.M.R. (“Mother”), that same day. Mother 

has not filed a brief in connection with this appeal, nor has she filed her own 

separate appeal.
J-A30043-16

- 2 -

a third report on August 15, 2012. The reports were made as a 

result of Mother’s drug use, mental health issues, lack of 

compliance with parenting services, and residential transiency, 

as well as Father’s criminal history.

Father was first incarcerated as a result of charges 

incurred in April 2008, six months prior to E.O.R.’s birth, for 

possession with intent to deliver. At the time of the offense, he 

knew Mother was pregnant. He was incarcerated for 13 months 

on a two to four year sentence because he was boot camp 

eligible. Father testified that the next criminal charge he had 

was in December 2011 for drug possession and a firearm charge, 

though his incarceration may have been due to a parole 

violation. During his incarceration, Father’s plan for preserving 

the family unit was to have the Children returned to Mother 

despite knowing the risks and danger that she posed to them. 

He provided money to her so that she could stabilize herself by 

getting an apartment for herself and the Children, but she used 

it to get an apartment for herself and another man. 

Father was released from jail on September 14, 2012. 

Father reported that he was still on parole and out on bail for the 

pending charge of carrying a firearm without a license and 

possession of drug paraphernalia. 

Father began visiting the Children, who were being cared 

for by their maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother 

had issues of her own, including a drug history and an 

unsanitary residence. On October 19, 2012, the maternal 

grandmother requested that Father immediately take the 

[C]hildren because she could no longer care for them. Following 

a safety conference, the Children were permitted to remain in 

Father’s care.

The Children were well cared for by Father; however, 

BCCYS learned that Father permitted Mother and maternal 

grandmother to have contact that was not permitted under the 

December 12, 2012 Family Plan. A Safety Plan was 

implemented on April 30, 2013[,] that allowed Mother to have 

visits with the Children through approved providers only. 

At a July 10, 2013 dependency hearing, the [orphans’ 

c]ourt declared the Children dependent but allowed physical 

custody to remain with Father. Due to Father’s pending criminal 
J-A30043-16

- 3 -

charges, safety conferences were scheduled to establish a plan 

for the Children’s care as the circumstances might require, but 

Father failed to participate. On August 29, 2013, BCCYS 

obtained emergency custody of the Children because Father had 

been incarcerated on August 23, 2013[,] and his mother, with 

whom Father left the Children, did not have the resources to 

provide for their appropriate care. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/25/16, at 4-5.

On September 29, 2014, BCCYS filed petitions to involuntarily 

terminate Father’s parental rights to the Children. The orphans’ court held a 

termination hearing on April 11, 2016. Following the hearing, on April 13, 

2016, the court entered decrees terminating Father’s parental rights. Father 

timely filed pro se notices of appeal on May 9, 2016.2, 3

Father now raises the following issues for our review:

1) Did the [orphans’ c]ourt err[] in granting BCCYS’s Petition to 

Involuntarily Terminate the Parental Rights of Biological Father 

under 23 Pa. C.S.[A.] § 2511 (a) (1), (2), (5), (8), and (b)?

____________________________________________

2

Father was represented by counsel during the termination hearing. On 

May 5, 2016, Father’s prior counsel filed a motion to withdraw, in which she 

averred that Father wished to proceed pro se. The orphans’ court granted 

prior counsel’s motion to withdraw by order entered May 16, 2016. Father is 

represented by new counsel on appeal, although the record does not reveal 

when Father’s current counsel was appointed.

3

Father failed to file concise statements of errors complained of on appeal at 

the same time as his pro se notices of appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i). However, Father later filed an additional pro se notice of 

appeal on May 23, 2016, which included a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. We have accepted Father’s concise statement 

pursuant to In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding 

that the appellant’s failure to comply strictly with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did 

not warrant waiver of her claims, as there was no prejudice to any party).
J-A30043-16

- 4 -

2) Did BCCYS[] fail to provide the biological father with 

reasonable efforts [to] promote reunification and/or fail to act on 

the behalf of the [C]hildren’s best interest pursuant to 42 Pa. 

C.S.A. § 6351 (a) (2.1.) and (f)[?]

3) Did [Father] suffer from ineffective assistance of counsel?

Father’s Brief at 9.

Father’s first and second issues are interrelated, so we address them 

together. In his first issue, Father argues that the orphans’ court erred by 

involuntarily terminating his parental rights to the Children. In his second 

issue, Father argues that BCCYS failed to provide him with reasonable 

reunification efforts. Father further contends that the court should have 

placed the Children in permanent legal custodianship or subsidized 

permanent legal custodianship (“PLC/SPLC”) rather than terminate his 

parental rights. 

We consider these claims mindful of our well-settled standard of 

review.

The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases 

requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and 

credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported 

by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate 

courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law 

or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an 

abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest 

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial 

court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely

because the record would support a different result. We have 

previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often 

have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple 

hearings.
J-A30043-16

- 5 -

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). 

Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated 

analysis. 

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party

seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory 

grounds for termination delineated in 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) (citations omitted).

In this case, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights 

pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). We need agree with 

the orphans’ court as to only 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), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004). Here, 

we analyze the court’s decision to terminate under Section 2511(a)(2) and 

Section 2511(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:
J-A30043-16

- 6 -

***

(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.A. §§ 2511(a)(2) and 2511(b).

We first address whether the orphans’ 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.A. 

§ 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 
J-A30043-16

- 7 -

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). “[A] parent’s incarceration is relevant to the 

section (a)(2) analysis and, depending on the circumstances of the case, it 

may be dispositive of a parent’s ability to provide the ‘essential parental 

care, control or subsistence’ that the section contemplates.” In re A.D., 93 

A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (discussing In re Adoption of S.P., 47 

A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012)).

Instantly, the orphans’ court found that while Father has attempted to 

remain involved in the Children’s lives, he is incapable of providing the 

Children with the essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary 

for their physical and mental well-being. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/25/16, 

at 7. Further, the court found that Father will not be able to remedy his 

parental incapacity in the near future, and that, even after his release from 

incarceration, Father will have “much to prove” in order to demonstrate that 

he is capable of caring for the Children. Id. The court concluded that “[i]t is 

not fair to [the Children] to hold their lives, their development, their 

potential, their stability, and their welfare generally in limbo” until Father is 

able to resume performing parental responsibilities. Id.

Father argues that he participated in various programs and services 

while incarcerated, and that he has maintained regular contact with the 

Children. Father’s Brief at 14, 18. Father insists that he demonstrated an 
J-A30043-16

- 8 -

ability to care for the Children prior to his current incarceration. Id. at 15-

17. According to Father, he will have housing available upon his release, 

and will be able to obtain employment quickly and resume performing 

parental responsibilities. Id. at 18-19. 

In addition, Father argues that BCCYS failed to provide him with 

reasonable reunification efforts. Father acknowledges our Supreme Court’s 

holding in In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014), i.e., that failure to 

provide reasonable reunification efforts does not preclude termination of 

parental rights. Father’s Brief at 24. Nonetheless, Father contends that “a 

lack of assistance by BCCYS to [Father] is relevant to whether [F]ather’s 

incapacity cannot or will not be remedied[.]” Id. (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). Father does not specify what services BCCYS allegedly 

failed to provide, but claims that BCCYS “interfered with all of [his] efforts,” 

and “failed to provide further a chance [sic] to remedy the conditions” 

causing the Children to be placed in foster care. Id.

After carefully examining the record in this matter, we conclude that 

the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion by involuntarily terminating 

Father’s parental rights to the Children. During the termination hearing, 

BCCYS presented the testimony of caseworker, Ruth George. Ms. George 

testified that Father has remained incarcerated throughout the Children’s 

placement in foster care. N.T., 4/11/16, at 31. Father participated in 

various programs and services during his incarceration, and Ms. George 
J-A30043-16

- 9 -

believed that Father did about all he could do while in prison. Id. at 31-32. 

Despite these efforts, Ms. George recommended that Father’s parental rights 

be terminated. Id. at 32. Ms. George emphasized Father’s lengthy history 

of incarceration, and the Children’s need for “somebody they can depend 

on.” Id.

Ms. George further testified that, even if Father were released from 

incarceration in the near future, he still would need to obtain housing and 

employment in order to care for the Children. Id. at 42. Father would need 

to demonstrate that he is capable of staying out of prison, and BCCYS would 

need to “mak[e] sure that there’s appropriate care-taking capabilities and a 

plan for the care of the [C]hildren and meeting their special needs.” Id. 

Ms. George estimated that this process would take approximately “nine 

months to a year.” Id.

Father testified that he would be meeting with the parole board shortly 

after the termination hearing. Id. at 47. Father stated that it usually takes 

the parole board about four to eight weeks to reach a decision, and that he 

hoped to be released in the next few months. Id. at 47-48. Father 

indicated that, if released, he would have a year of state parole left to serve, 

as well as six years of county probation. Id. at 55-56. Father reported that 

after being released he would stay at his grandmother’s house and seek 

employment so that the Children could be returned to his care. Id. at 48. 
J-A30043-16

- 10 -

Accordingly, the record supports the finding of the orphans’ court that 

Father is incapable of parenting the Children, and that Father cannot, or will 

not, remedy his parental incapacity. As discussed above, Father has been in 

and out of prison since 2008. Most recently, Father spent about one year 

caring for the Children, from September of 2012 to August of 2013. See id.

at 46. At the time of the termination hearing, the Children had been in 

foster care for over two and a half years, from August of 2013 until April of 

2016, and it was not clear when, if ever, Father would be able to care for 

them again. Even assuming that Father is released at the earliest possible 

opportunity, it would take nearly another year in order for Father to be 

considered a placement resource for the Children. This is simply 

unacceptable. As this Court has stated, “a child’s life cannot be held in 

abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary to 

assume parenting responsibilities. The court cannot and will not subordinate 

indefinitely a child's need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims 

of progress and hope for the future.” In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 

502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006).

With respect to Father’s claim that BCCYS failed to provide him with 

reasonable reunification efforts, Father is correct that “a court may find an 

agency’s lack of assistance to a parent relevant to whether a parent's 

incapacity cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.” In re D.C.D., 105 

A.3d at 672 (citation and quotation marks omitted). However, Father has 
J-A30043-16

- 11 -

failed completely to explain what other efforts BCCYS could have made that 

would have enabled him to be reunited with the Children. Clearly, BCCYS 

could not prevent Father from being incarcerated, nor could it cause him to 

be released from incarceration any earlier. The record confirms that Father’s 

parental capacity is entirely of his own making, and that BCCYS was 

powerless to remedy this incapacity through the provision of additional 

services.

We next consider whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion by 

terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b). We have 

discussed our analysis under Section 2511(b) as follows.

Section 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental 

rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and 

emotional needs and welfare of the child. As this Court has 

explained, Section 2511(b) does not explicitly require a bonding 

analysis and the term ‘bond’ is not defined in the Adoption Act. 

Case law, however, provides that analysis of the emotional bond, 

if any, between parent and child is a factor to be considered as 

part of our analysis. While a parent’s emotional bond with his or 

her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) bestinterest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be 

considered by the court when determining what is in the best 

interest of the child.

[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court 

can equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, 

and should also consider the intangibles, such as the 

love, comfort, security, and stability the child might 

have with the foster parent. Additionally, this Court 

stated that the trial court should consider the 

importance of continuity of relationships and whether 

any existing parent-child bond can be severed 

without detrimental effects on the child.
J-A30043-16

- 12 -

In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting 

In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011)) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

Here, the orphans’ court found that the Children’s primary parental 

bond is with their foster parents, and that the Children “have an ‘uncle’ type 

bond with Father.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/25/16, at 6. The court 

emphasized the testimony of the bonding evaluator, psychologist Richard F. 

Small, Ph.D., who opined that it would be more detrimental for the Children 

to be separated from their foster parents than from Father. Id. The court 

concluded that, “[w]hile it might be nice, [the Children] do not need contact 

with Father.” Id. at 7. In contrast, the court stressed that the Children do 

need permanency, as well as the parental care that can be provided to them 

by their foster parents. Id. 

Father insists that the Children are more strongly bonded to him than 

to their foster parents, and challenges the contrary opinion presented by Dr. 

Small. Father’s Brief at 20-21. Father argues that Dr. Small contradicted 

himself by indicating in his bonding evaluation report that the Children are 

strongly bonded to Father, but then testifying during the termination hearing 

that Father and the Children do not share a strong bond. Id. Father argues 

that Dr. Small also contradicted himself by indicating in his report that the 

Children’s bond with their foster parents could be severed with little harm to 

the Children, but then testifying that severing this bond would be highly 
J-A30043-16

- 13 -

detrimental. Id. at 21. Father contends that the orphans’ court should have 

placed the Children in PLC/SPLC, rather than terminate his parental rights, in 

order to preserve the bond between Father and the Children. Id. at 23-26. 

We again conclude that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion. 

Dr. Small conducted a forensic bonding evaluation with respect to the 

Children in October of 2015. N.T., 4/11/16, at 18-19. As part of the 

evaluation process, Dr. Small met with the Children, as well as their foster 

parents, their paternal great-grandmother, and Father. Id. at 19. Dr. Small 

summarized his conclusions in a bonding evaluation report, which was 

admitted into evidence as Exhibit 60. Id. at 29. In his report, Dr. Small 

concluded that the Children have “a strong bond” with Father and their 

great-grandmother, and an “excellent bond” with their foster parents. 

Exhibit 60 at 6. Dr. Small opined that it would be “detrimental” to sever the 

bond between the Children and Father. Id. Dr. Small further opined that it 

would be possible to sever the bond between the Children and their foster 

parents with little harm, “[i]f, in fact, [the Children’s great-grandmother] 

and [Father] were immediately able to form a predictable, stable 

environment[.]” Id. However, Dr. Small cautioned that Father “would not 

be even available to form a stable environment for another six months, 

during which time the bond with the [foster parents] is likely to grow 

stronger. Severing it would likely be increasingly detrimental as time 

passes.” Id. 
J-A30043-16

- 14 -

During the termination hearing, Dr. Small testified that the Children’s 

bond with their foster parents is their primary, parental bond. N.T., 

4/11/16, at 20. Concerning the Children’s relationship with Father, Dr. 

Small opined, “[M.M.R.] seemed to see her father as a nice benign figure. 

[E.O.R.] it’s almost like he’s a nice uncle, he’s somebody that they like 

seeing, they enjoy seeing, but isn’t necessarily the person raising them.” 

Id. Dr. Small acknowledged that it would be “detrimental” to end the 

Children’s relationship with Father, but clarified that “[d]etrimental doesn’t 

mean horrible.” Id. at 21. Dr. Small reasoned that the bond the Children 

share with their foster parents is more important than the bond they share 

with Father, and that it would be “highly detrimental” for the Children to be 

separated from their foster parents. Id. at 21-22. Ultimately, Dr. Small 

recommended that the Children remain with their foster parents, while 

having “occasional” contact with Father and great-grandmother. Id. at 24, 

26.

Thus, the record confirms that terminating Father’s parental rights 

would best serve the needs and welfare of the Children. Our review of Dr. 

Small’s bonding evaluation report does not reveal any significant differences 

between the report and Dr. Small’s testimony during the termination 

hearing. While Father is correct that Dr. Small’s bonding evaluation report 

arguably does differ slightly from his testimony, it was for the orphans’ 

court, not this Court, to assess these possible discrepancies and determine 
J-A30043-16

- 15 -

how much weight, if any, to place on the opinions of Dr. Small. The 

orphans’ court was free to accept the testimony of Dr. Small that the 

Children’s most important bond is with their foster parents, and that Father 

is more of an “uncle” to the Children than a parent.

Further, we reject Father’s claim that the orphans’ court should have 

placed the Children in PLC/SPLC rather than terminate his parental rights. 

According to Ms. George, Father has requested that the Children be placed in

the permanent legal custody of their foster parents. N.T., 4/11/16, at 34. 

However, Ms. George explained that BCCYS is opposed to placing the 

Children in PLC/SPLC because “[t]he [C]hildren are too young. That is 

primarily for children who are age 12 and over. These children need 

permanency.” Id. at 34-35. It was within the discretion of the orphans’ 

court to accept the testimony of Ms. George, and to conclude that the 

Children’s needs and welfare would be better served by achieving 

permanency through adoption, rather than leaving the Children in the limbo 

of PLC/SPLC.

Finally, we address Father’s claim that his prior counsel provided 

ineffective assistance during the termination proceedings. 

The unique nature of parental termination cases has long 

been recognized by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Thus, 

In re Adoption of R.I., 455 Pa. 29, 312 A.2d 601 (1973), the 

Supreme Court held that an indigent parent in a termination of 

parental rights case has a constitutional right to counsel. The 

right to counsel in parental termination cases is the right to 

effective assistance of counsel even though the case is civil in 

nature. However, this right is more limited than that in criminal 
J-A30043-16

- 16 -

cases, as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be 

raised on direct appeal. We then review the record as a whole to 

determine whether or not the parties received a fundamentally 

fair hearing; a finding that counsel was ineffective is made only 

if the parent demonstrates that counsel’s ineffectiveness was the 

cause of the decree of termination.

In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 774-75 (Pa. Super. 2009) (some citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

Here, Father claims that his prior counsel, Kelly Kline, Esquire, was 

ineffective because she failed to file a petition requesting that the Children 

be placed in PLC/SPLC, failed to argue before the orphans’ court that 

PLC/SPLC was an option, and “failed to . . . raise numerous issues that 

[Father] has raised [i]n his brief[.]” Father’s Brief at 29. Additionally, 

Father suggests that his counsel prior to Attorney Kline, Susan Quirits, 

Esquire, was ineffective by failing to “subpoena Kimberly Reinert (BCCYS In 

Home Case Worker), who could discuss [F]ather’s conduct during his release 

on bail, prior to his incarceration.” Id. at 29-30. 

Father is not entitled to relief, as it is apparent that Attorney Kline’s 

failure to request PLC/SPLC was not the cause of the decree terminating his 

parental rights. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that it was 

Father’s lengthy history of incarcerations, and the slim chance that he would 

be able to resume caring for the Children at any point in the foreseeable 

future, that caused Father’s parental rights to be terminated. As discussed 

above, the orphans’ court clearly was aware that PLC/SPLC was an option in 

this case. It was within the court’s discretion to accept the testimony of Ms. 
J-A30043-16

- 17 -

George that placing the Children in PLC/SPLC was inadvisable given their 

young age, and that it would better serve the Children’s needs and welfare 

to be adopted. 

Further, Father fails to specify in his brief what other “numerous 

issues” he believes Attorney Kline could have raised, or why he believes 

these issues would have changed the outcome of the termination hearing. 

Father also fails to explain how the failure of Attorney Quirits to subpoena 

Ms. Reinert could possibly have had any impact on the result in this case. 

That Father did a competent job of caring for the Children prior to his 

incarceration is not in dispute. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/25/16, at 4 

(“The Children were well cared for by Father[.]”). Moreover, Father’s shortlived success as a parent three years ago does not change the fact that he 

remained incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing, and that it 

was unclear when, if ever, Father would be able to parent the Children 

again.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not 

abuse its discretion by involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to 

the Children. We therefore affirm the court’s April 13, 2016 decrees. 

Decrees affirmed. 
J-A30043-16

- 18 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/12/2016