J-S29018-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.I.T.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: D.W., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3594 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Decree September 28, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at 

No(s): CP-51-AP-0000502-2017, 

FID: 51-FN-000654-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JUNE 04, 2018

D.W. (Father) appeals from the decree which involuntarily terminated 

his parental rights to his minor son, K.I.T.W. (Child), born in December 2013.1

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual and procedural history of this 

case as follows:

S.C.S., is the “Mother” of K.M-A., L.M-A. and [(Child) (collectively, 

Children)].

D.I.W. is the “Father” of [Child], and is listed as the [f]ather on 

the Child’s birth certificate. 

On March 23, 2016, the Department of Human Services (DHS) 

received a General Protective Services (GPS) Report alleging that 

____________________________________________

1 The September 28, 2017 termination decree also terminated the parental 

rights of S.C.S. (Mother). Mother did not appeal that determination, nor is 

she a party to this appeal.
J-S29018-18

- 2 -

[Child] was found inside the home alone; that Community 

Umbrella Agency (CUA) Turning Points for Children (TPFC) 

attempted to contact the Mother, S.C.S., and Maternal Great 

Uncle, B.W.; that B.W. answered the telephone and stated that he 

had left the home and that Mother was with [Child]; that the police 

were contacted and an officer observed [Child] in the home alone; 

and that B.W., arrived at the home after the police. The [r]eport 

further alleged that an [Order of Protective Custody (OPC)] was 

requested to place [Child]. This Report was substantiated. 

On March 23, 2016, DHS received a supplemental report alleging 

that the police were called after [Child] was found at home alone, 

and he tried to open the door of the home and was calling for his 

Mother. The report further alleged that Maternal Great Uncle, 

B.W., arrived before the police and stated that he believed Mother 

was in the home with the Child. B.W. stated he did not see Mother 

in the home and that he heard her on the telephone. The report 

alleged that B.W. left the home at approximately 11:35 a.m. on 

3/23/2016, and returned at 12:05 p.m. on 3/23/2016; and that 

[Child] was unsupervised for approximately 30 minutes. The 

report further alleged that the front door was barricaded on the 

inside, and that Mother may have barricaded the door to prevent

the Child from opening the door. [Child’s] Maternal Aunt, T.N., 

who was listed on the Safety Plan as the responsible party, was 

contacted and she stated that she was in New York. 

On March 23, 2016, DHS went to the home of Mother. When DHS 

approached the home, Mother arrived and asked why DHS was 

there. DHS informed Mother about the GPS Report. DHS entered 

the home and observed the Agency Representative of TPFC and 

B.W. with the Child. B.W. stated that he did not know that Mother 

was not in the home when he left. B.W. further stated that he 

takes medication which can make him drowsy. DHS explained to 

Mother that DHS would plan for [Child’s] placement. Mother 

became irate and stated she would not allow DHS to remove 

[Child] from the home. DHS and TPFC Representative stepped 

outside of the home to call for police assistance and when the 

police arrived, Mother closed the front door and would not allow 

DHS to enter the home again. When they got inside the home, it 

was discovered that Mother had left through the back door with 

the Child. DHS left the home and waited for the police to locate 

Mother. The police subsequently contacted DHS and stated that 

Mother was at a police station with the Child and that [Child] was 

safe. DHS went to the police station and retrieved the Child. 
J-S29018-18

- 3 -

On March 23, 2016, DHS obtained an OPC for [Child] and placed 

him in Foster Care through Progressive Life. 

A Shelter Care Hearing was held on March 25, 2016 for the Child 

before Juvenile Court Hearing Officer, Theodore Vigilante. The 

Court OPC was lifted, [with] temporary legal custody to remain 

with DHS, and placement of Child to remain in Foster Care through 

Progressive Life. DHS to explore Paternal Grandfather as a 

placement resource and conduct all appropriate clearances. Child 

may be moved prior to the next court date. 

An Adjudicatory Hearing was held for the Child on April 4, 2016, 

before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal Custody of the Child 

to transfer to the Guardian, Paternal Grandfather, G.J., and 

physical custody of the Child shall also transfer to Guardian 

Paternal Grandfather, G.J. Child to continue to receive speech 

therapy through Child Link. CUA to provide clothing voucher to 

foster mom. CUA to explore prison visits with the Father, and to 

create a visitation schedule between Father and Child if

appropriate. 

Trial Court Opinion, 1/11/18, at 3-5 (internal citations omitted).

On May 3, 2017, DHS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental 

rights to Child. The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition on 

September 28, 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court delivered 

its decision from the bench, ordering that Father’s parental rights to Child be 

terminated. It entered the written order on the same date. On October 30, 

2017, Father timely filed his notice of appeal, along with a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and 
J-S29018-18

- 4 -

(b).2 The trial court issued its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on 

January 11, 2018.

On appeal, Father raises the following issue:

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING 

FATHER, [D.W.’S], PARENTAL RIGHTS WHERE FATHER WAS 

NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE HEARING 

TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS?

Father’s Brief at 2.

We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in 

accordance with the following standard:

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.

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

omitted). 

____________________________________________

2 Generally, a party must file his or her notice of appeal within 30 days after

the entry of the order being appealed. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Here, 30 days after 

September 28, 2017 was October 28, 2017. Because October 28, 2017 was 

a Saturday, Father timely filed his notice of appeal on Monday, October 30, 

2017. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (“Whenever the last day of any such period shall 

fall on Saturday or Sunday . . . such day shall be omitted from the 

computation.”).
J-S29018-18

- 5 -

Father’s sole issue is whether he was properly served with notice of the 

hearing to terminate his parental rights. Initially, we note Father does not 

argue that he did not receive notice of the termination proceeding. Father’s 

Brief at 6-7. Instead, Father generally asserts that DHS’s notice via certified 

mail was insufficient because Father did not personally sign for the delivery. 

In essence, Father asks this Court to interpret the notice provisions as they 

relate to involuntary termination matters, to require restricted delivery.3

The Adoption Act governs involuntary termination of parental rights 

proceedings. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938. Section 2513(b) of the Act 

provides as follows:

(b) Notice.—At least ten days’ notice shall be given to the parent 

or parents, putative father, or parent of a minor parent whose 

rights are to be terminated, by personal service or by registered 

mail to his or their last known address or by such other means as 

the court may require. A copy of the notice shall be given in the 

same manner to the other parent, putative father or parent or 

guardian of a minor parent whose rights are to be terminated. A 

putative father shall include one who has filed a claim of paternity 

as provided in section 5103 (relating to acknowledgment and 

claim of paternity) prior to the institution of proceedings. The 

notice shall state the following:

“A petition has been filed asking the court to put an end to all 

rights you have to your child (insert name of child). The court has 

set a hearing to consider ending your rights to your child. That 

hearing will be held in (insert place, giving reference to exact room 

and building number or designation) on (insert date) at (insert 

time). You are warned that even if you fail to appear at the 

____________________________________________

3 Restricted delivery is mail “delivered only to the addressee or the person [ ] 

specifically authorize[d] in writing to receive [the] restricted delivery mail.” 

Dwyer v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureau, 110 A.3d 223, 226 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2015). 
J-S29018-18

- 6 -

scheduled hearing, the hearing will go on without you and your 

rights to your child may be ended by the court without your being 

present. You have a right to be represented at the hearing by a 

lawyer. You should take this paper to your lawyer at once. If you 

do not have a lawyer or cannot afford one, go to or telephone the 

office set forth below to find out where you can get legal help.

(Name)

(Address)

(Telephone number)”

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2513(b) (emphasis added).

Likewise, our Orphans’ Court Rules provide the following guidance, in 

relevant part:

(a) Notice to every person to be notified shall be by personal 

service, service at his or her residence on an adult member of the 

household, or by registered or certified mail to his or her last 

known address. If such service is unobtainable and the registered

mail is returned undelivered, then:

* * *

(2) in [involuntarily termination and adoption proceedings], 

further notice by publication or otherwise shall be given if required 

by general rule or special order of the local Orphans’ Court. If, 

after reasonable investigation, the identity of a person to be 

notified is unknown, notice to him or her shall not be required.

Pa.R.O.C. 15.6(a)(2) (emphasis added). As in all civil cases, the petitioner –

in this case DHS – bears the burden of proving proper service by its affirmative 

acts. Leight v. Lefkowitz, 615 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa. Super. 1992). 

Appellee, DHS, argues that Father’s issue is waived because it differs 

significantly from the issues raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement. We agree. 

See Dietrich v. Dietrich, 923 A.2d 461, 463 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that
J-S29018-18

- 7 -

when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b) statement, any issues not raised in 

that statement are waived on appeal). Accordingly, we are constrained to 

conclude that Father has waived all issues on appeal.

However, even had Father not waived this claim, the record confirms 

that he received adequate notice of the hearing. At the beginning of the 

September 28, 2017 termination hearing, DHS addressed the service and 

notice on Father as follows:

Just regarding the service and notice on [Father], the father of 

[Child], he is currently incarcerated at PIC. And he was sent 

notice by certified mail of this hearing as well as the petitions . . . 

. And that was effectually delivered at the prison on June 10, 

2017. 

N.T., 9/28/17, at 10-11. The record also includes a copy of the subpoena sent 

to Father, a certified mail tracking receipt, and USPS tracking results that 

indicate service was effectuated on June 10, 2017. See DHS Ex. 3. Such 

service complied with the requirements of both Section 2513(b) of the 

Adoption Act and Pennsylvania Rule of Orphans’ Court 15.6(a), giving Father 

sufficient notice of the termination hearing. For these reasons, we conclude 

that Father’s issue does not merit relief. Therefore, we affirm the decree 

involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child.

Decree affirmed.

Judge Panella joins the memorandum.

P.J.E. Stevens concurs in the result. 
J-S29018-18

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/4/18