J-S28002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF: I.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.N.W., JR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 423 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 8, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County 

Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 66 of 2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: October 31, 2023

J.W. (“Father”) and A.B. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of I.W., 

born in 2013. Mother and Father ended their relationship days after I.W.’s 

birth, and I.W. lived with Mother. Mother and Father did not have any legal 

custody agreement at that point, and although Father initially visited I.W., he 

did not have any contact with I.W. after she turned two years old. Father 

eventually filed a custody action in 2020, but he failed to meet the courtordered prerequisites which would have allowed for visitation with I.W. 

In September 2022, Mother filed a petition seeking to involuntarily 

terminate the parental rights of Father as Father, by that point, had not seen 

I.W. for at least six years. The Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S28002-23

- 2 -

held a hearing on the petition, at which both Mother and Father testified. 

Following the hearing, the orphans’ court entered a decree granting Mother’s

termination petition and Father appealed. Father argues the orphans’ court

abused its discretion by granting the termination petition because it was 

Mother’s actions which prevented him from seeing and having contact with 

I.W. over the years and because he has consistently paid child support for 

I.W. We do not agree. Instead, mindful of the great deference we are required 

to give orphans’ courts in termination matters, we affirm.

While the certified record is relatively sparse, we note that it is 

undisputed that Father had no contact with I.W. for the majority of her life. 

The primary factual dispute in this case concerns the reasons why Father had 

no contact. 

I.W. was born in Allegheny County in November 2013. Mother and 

Father lived together at the time. However, Mother and Father ended their 

relationship five days after I.W. was born, and Mother and I.W. moved out. 

Father visited I.W. several times but Mother then moved out of the area. 

Father has not seen I.W. since she was approximately two years old.

Mother began living with M.B. (“Stepfather”) right after she left Father’s 

residence, and Mother and Stepfather married in 2014. Mother and I.W. have 

lived with Stepfather almost the entirety of I.W.’s life, except for one brief 

period in which Mother and Stepfather were separated. The family, which also 
J-S28002-23

- 3 -

includes Mother and Stepfather’s five biological children, has moved several 

times.

Although Mother and Father initially communicated through Facebook, 

in early 2015, Mother blocked Father as Mother became uneasy 

communicating with Father. Mother has since blocked Father on Facebook 

numerous times and in fact, “Father has been blocked from Mother’s Facebook 

for the majority of the past few years.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/8/2023, at 7. 

Father filed a petition seeking custody of I.W. for the first time in August 

2020, when I.W. was approaching seven years old. Following a custody 

conciliation conference, the trial court entered an order in November 2020 

awarding Mother primary physical custody but shared legal custody between 

Mother and Father. The court ordered Father to participate in parent-child 

reunification therapy as a prerequisite to starting visitation with I.W. 

Specifically, the court ordered the parties to engage in reunification therapy 

with William Bush, Ed.D., and further ordered Father and I.W. to participate 

in a minimum of four therapy sessions.1

Father and Mother eventually completed their intake requirements with 

Dr. Bush. However, because of scheduling difficulties with Dr. Bush, the trial 

court entered an order on September 22, 2021, changing the parties’ 

____________________________________________

1 This custody order is not in the certified record. However, none of the parties 

dispute the order’s content.
J-S28002-23

- 4 -

reunification therapist to Bethanne Petrylak, LMFT. Father was to contact 

Counselor Petrylak within 48 hours to schedule an intake appointment.2

Father did not do the intake and Mother filed a petition for custody 

modification in October 2021, seeking primary physical and legal custody. The 

court held a custody conciliation conference and entered an order on January 

7, 2022. The order maintained shared legal custody with Mother and Father 

but directed Father to complete an intake session with Counselor Petrylak on 

January 13, 2022 so that reunification counseling with I.W. could begin. Father 

was to pay for his intake session, and Mother and Father were to share the 

costs of the reunification therapy.

Again, Father did not complete the intake session as directed, and on 

January 20, 2022, Mother filed a praecipe for a pretrial conference. The court 

held a conference in March 2022, but Father failed to appear. The court 

therefore entered an order on March 22, 2022, granting sole legal custody of 

I.W. to Mother. However, the court also gave Father 30 days to request a 

second pretrial conference before the order became final. Father did not file 

any such request. He also did not complete his intake with Counselor Petrylak.

On September 9, 2022, Mother filed the petition to involuntarily 

terminate Father’s parental rights, seeking to terminate Father’s rights 

____________________________________________

2 Again, this order is not in the certified record but once again, the parties do 

not dispute the content of this order.
J-S28002-23

- 5 -

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and (b). Father 

contested the petition.

The court held a hearing on the petition, which was attended by both 

Mother and Father and their counsel. Mother testified first. She explained that 

she lives with Stepfather, their five children, and I.W. See N.T., 2/21/2023, 

at 4. Mother explained that Father had not seen I.W. since I.W. was one and 

one-half or two years old. See id. at 10. I.W., according to Mother, has no 

idea who Father is. See id. at 23.

Mother testified that Father does not know who I.W.’s doctor is, does 

not know what school I.W. attends, and has never been to a parent-teacher 

conference for I.W. See id. at 16. Mother further stated that Father has never 

attended a birthday party for I.W., has never sent her a gift for her birthday 

or Christmas, and has never visited her over any holiday. See id. at 17-18. 

According to Mother, Father has never sent I.W. a card or a gift. See id. at 

40-41. Mother acknowledged Father has paid child support for I.W. “off and 

on” since she sought it in 2015 or 2016. See id. at 15, 35.

Mother stated she blocked Father on Facebook in early 2015 but 

unblocked him when she asked Father to care for I.W., who was approximately 

one and one-half years old at the time, while Mother was in the hospital. See 
J-S28002-23

- 6 -

id. at 28-29.3 Mother conceded she “kept unblocking [Father] and blocking 

[Father]” on Facebook over the years. Id. at 29. She testified she “opened 

the lines of communication” with Father after the first custody hearing and 

Father did ask for pictures of I.W. through Facebook. See id. at 18. However, 

Mother stated that after sole legal custody was returned to her in March 2022, 

she decided not to send pictures and once again blocked Father on Facebook. 

See id. at 18, 31. 

Mother explained that although Father filed for custody, he never 

received visitation rights to I.W. because reunification therapy had never been 

completed. See id. 14-15. Mother confirmed that Father failed to comply with 

the court orders regarding reunification therapy. See id. at 19. 

Mother stated that I.W. has lived with Stepfather since she was five days 

old, and Stepfather has been I.W.’s “father figure [for] literally [her] entire 

life.” Id. at 11, 20. Stepfather attends I.W.’s parent-teacher conferences, 

drives her to softball practices, and is the person I.W. goes to when she is 

scared. See id. at 20. I.W. calls Stepfather “dad,” and “she is a dad’s girl.” 

Id. at 21, 23. Stepfather takes the children, including I.W., to the bus stop on 

school mornings. See id. at 22. Stepfather wants to adopt I.W., and I.W. 

____________________________________________

3 Mother testified that she originally “blocked [Father] after repeated 

messages of him stating that he would sign his rights away to [I.W.] for 

provocative pictures and videos of [Mother and Stepfather”]. Id. at 28. 
J-S28002-23

- 7 -

wants Stepfather to adopt her and to have the same last name as Stepfather, 

Mother, and her siblings. See id. at 24, 44.

Mother testified she and Stepfather have moved a number of times instate over the last several years. See id. at 33. She also testified she and 

Father did not leave on good terms, so she did not want to give him her 

address. See id. at 36. She clarified that “it wasn’t that we didn’t let him know 

where we were, it was more the fact that we [moved to] where was best for 

our family at the time.” Id. at 27.

Father testified next. He testified he currently lives in West Virginia and 

has primary physical custody of one of his sons, C.W, and partial custody of 

two of his other children, E.W. and H.W. He agreed he has seen “very little” 

of I.W. since she was five days old, though I.W. and Mother did stay with him 

for about one week when I.W. was around nine months old. Id. at 51-52. 

According to Father, after Mother moved to Butler, Pennsylvania when I.W. 

was about nine months old, Father did not have any consistent contact 

information for Mother. See id. at 53. Father maintained Mother frequently 

blocked him on Facebook over the years. See id. at 53-54, 69. 

Father stated that he learned of Mother’s address from his former 

paramour in August 2020, and he filed the custody petition for I.W. See id.

at 54-55. Father testified that, after the court ordered him to participate in 

reunification therapy, Father did his intake with Dr. Bush. See id. at 55. 

However, Father testified he had scheduling issues with Dr. Bush, and the 
J-S28002-23

- 8 -

orphans’ court eventually issued an order directing the parties to do 

reunification therapy with another counselor, Counselor Petrylak. See id. at 

56.

Father explained that he did not follow through with intake or 

reunification therapy with Counselor Petrylak because he had lost his job and 

could not afford to do so. See id. at 56-57. Father maintained that he also 

could not afford to pay his attorney in the custody case for I.W., and the 

attorney withdrew. See id. at 56-57. Father further explained that he had 

failed to appear at the March 2022 hearing on Mother’s petition to modify 

custody of I.W. because it conflicted with a custody hearing involving two of 

his other children. See id. at 71. 

Father conceded that once he filed the petition seeking custody of I.W. 

and knew Mother’s and I.W.’s address, he still did not send any cards, letters, 

or gifts to I.W. See id. at 61, 74. He claimed he was unsure whether Mother 

would give them to I.W. See id. at 61. Father said he did ask Mother on 

Facebook in January 2022 to send pictures of I.W., and although Mother 

initially indicated she would do so, she then blocked him on Facebook without 

sending him any pictures. See id. at 63-64. 

Father testified that he did not seek relief from the court when Mother 

blocked him on Facebook, did not petition the court for funds to complete the 

reunification therapy and did not request a continuance of the March 2022 
J-S28002-23

- 9 -

custody hearing for I.W. because he was unaware he could ask the court for 

any of this relief. See id. at 69-72, 75.

At the close of Father’s testimony, the court asked I.W.’s attorney if she 

had met with I.W. She responded that she had, and she shared that I.W. 

wanted Father’s rights to be terminated, and I.W. wanted to be adopted by 

Stepfather. See id. at 76. Similarly, the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) reported 

that I.W. does not even know Father, and that “has to do with [Father].” Id.

at 78. Rather, the only dad I.W. has known is Stepfather, and that is who she 

seeks out for support, comfort, and love. See id. at 77. I.W. wants to be 

adopted and wants to have the same last name as Mother, Stepfather, and 

her siblings. See id. 

The court entered a decree granting Mother’s petition and involuntarily 

terminating Father’s parental rights to I.W. pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) 

and (b). Father filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement of 

errors complained of on appeal. The orphans’ court filed its Pa.R.A.P. 1925 

opinion, asserting it had not abused its discretion in granting Mother’s 

termination petition and directing this Court to its previous opinion in support 

of its decree for its reasoning substantiating its decision to terminate Father’s 

rights.

When this Court reviews an order of an orphans’ court terminating 

parental rights, we must accept the findings of fact and credibility 

determinations of the court as long as the record supports them. See In the 
J-S28002-23

- 10 -

Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 911 (Pa. Super. 2020). If the findings of 

fact are supported by the record, this Court may reverse the order only if the 

orphans’ court made an error of law or abused its discretion. See id. We may 

not reverse merely because the record could support an alternate result. See 

id. Instead, we give great deference to the orphans’ court because those 

courts often have the opportunity to observe the parties first-hand. See In re 

Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 670 (Pa. Super. 2019). Further, the 

orphans’ court, as the fact-finder, is free to believe all, part or none of the 

evidence presented and is likewise free to resolve any conflicts in the 

evidence. See id.

Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Under Section 2511, the orphans’ 

court must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights. 

See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). Initially, the court must 

find that the party seeking termination has proven by clear and convincing 

evidence that the conduct of the parent whose rights are at stake satisfies any 

one of the eleven statutory grounds set forth for termination under Section 

2511 (a). See id.; 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511 (a)(1-11). If the orphans’ court finds 

that one of those subsections has been satisfied, it must then, pursuant to 

Section 2511(b), make a determination of the needs and the welfare of the 

child under the best interests of the child standard. See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 

at 511; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).
J-S28002-23

- 11 -

Here, regarding the first prong of the analysis, the orphans' court found 

Mother had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s conduct 

met the grounds for termination of her parental rights to I.W. under Section 

2511(a)(1), which provides that parental rights may involuntarily be 

terminated on the grounds that:

The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six 

months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has 

evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a 

child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.

23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).

In defining what constitutes parental duties, this Court has focused on 

the child’s needs:

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

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

needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive 

interest in the development of the child. ... [Rather,] the parental 

obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative 

performance.

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1118-1119 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted)

In re Z.P. also made clear that “[a] parent must utilize all available 

resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable 

firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parentchild relationship.” 994 A.2d at 1119; see also In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 

759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating it is incumbent upon parents separated from 

their child to maintain steady and consistent contact with the child). 
J-S28002-23

- 12 -

Given the record before us, we fail to see how the orphans' court abused 

its discretion by reaching the conclusion that Father had not done so here. 

The court explained:

Father testified that prior to filing for custody, he did not see 

or contact [I.W.] because he was often blocked [on Facebook] by 

Mother or unaware of where she was living. Although Father may 

not have had Mother’s exact address, Mother testified that she did 

not block Father until February 2015. Father could have arranged 

to see [I.W.] prior to being blocked or could have initiated custody 

proceedings in order to see [I.W.] when he was initially blocked in 

2015. 

Mother contacted Father in 2015 and asked if he would be 

able to watch the child since she was in the hospital. Father did 

not make any further attempts to see [I.W.] or arrange visits with 

Mother after she contacted him.

After Father filed for custody in 2020, Mother’s address 

appeared on various Court Orders and documents. Father did not 

send [I.W.] any cards, gifts or further correspondence when he 

had Mother’s address. He has not attended any school functions 

or birthday parties for the child. Father has not attempted to 

contact Stepfather in order to see or speak to [I.W.]. 

Father did not participate in reunification services with 

[Bethanne Petrylak] which was necessary to begin visits with 

[I.W.]. While we understand Father’s financial situation during 

that time, Father could have petitioned the Court for relief to assist 

with reunification efforts [but he did not]. Additionally, Father did 

not appear at the Pretrial Conference and did not request a second 

conference, which would have been necessary for Father to 

expand his custodial time.

Father has not seen [I.W.] in over six years. Father is not 

involved in the child’s life in any measurable way other than 

paying child support. It is clear that Father has not performed any 

parental duties for the child throughout her life. Mother has met 

her burden under [Section 2511(a)(1)].
J-S28002-23

- 13 -

Trial Court Opinion, 3/8/2023, at 8-9 (first and second original paragraph 

divided into two paragraphs).

The court’s findings are supported by the record and based on that 

record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by 

determining that Mother had established that Father’s parental rights should 

be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1). 

Father’s arguments do not convince us otherwise. Father first argues 

the court abused its discretion because, although Father had not seen or 

contacted I.W. in over six years, this failure to maintain contact with I.W. was 

a result of Mother blocking him from Facebook and moving around the state 

without disclosing her address. However, the orphans’ court clearly considered 

these circumstances in its decision and found, in essence, that Father’s 

minimal efforts in attempting to maintain contact with I.W. despite these 

circumstances were not sufficient. 

We see no abuse of discretion in this determination. As this Court has 

stated, “parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith 

interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the 

parent-child relationship to the best of his ... ability, even in difficult 

circumstances.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1119 (citation omitted). Here, Father 

did not offer any evidence of affirmative efforts on his part to locate I.W. and 

did not attempt to get the courts involved until I.W. was close to seven years 

old. And although the record reflects that Mother regularly blocked Father on 
J-S28002-23

- 14 -

Facebook, Father did not offer any evidence that he took any steps to find 

alternative ways to contact Mother or to get the court involved to preserve his 

right to see his child. 

Father also argues that once he did learn of Mother’s address, he filed 

for custody and “the only reason that the custody action was not successful 

was that Father lost his job, and lost his custody attorney. Father also did not 

have the ability to follow through with Court-ordered reunification services at 

the time, due to his financial situation.” Appellant’s Brief at 24. 

As an initial matter, we note that Father’s filing of the custody petition 

and failure to comply with the court-ordered therapy came only after Father 

had not had any contact with I.W. for over six years. In any event, Father 

claims that he would have followed through with the custody action and 

reunification therapy had he not lost his job and his ability to pay for them. 

Again, the orphans’ court explicitly considered Father’s financial situation. 

While sympathizing with Father, the court noted that Father did not take any 

steps to notify the court that his financial situation was impeding his ability to 

comply with the court’s order mandating reunification therapy. Father testified 

that he was aware that reunification therapy with I.W. was necessary before 

the court would allow him to proceed to visitation with I.W. See N.T. 

2/21/2023, at 56. When he lost his job and he could not afford the therapy 

he needed to see his child, as the orphans’ court said, “Father could have 
J-S28002-23

- 15 -

petitioned the Court for relief to assist with reunification efforts,” but he did 

not. Trial Court Opinion, 3/8/2023, at 9. 

Father states repeatedly in his brief that he has remedied his financial 

difficulties and can now pay for reunification therapy. He also testified to that 

at trial, so the orphans’ court was clearly aware of Father’s asserted ability to 

now be able to pay for the therapy he needs to reunify with I.W. In the first 

place, this Court cannot look to the efforts of a parent to remedy the conditions 

underlying the termination petition after the petition has been filed. See 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Even if we could, as this Court has often indicated, a 

child should not be made to wait indefinitely for a parent to do what is 

necessary to establish a parent-child relationship and to assume parental 

responsibilities for that child. See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1119 (citation 

omitted) (stating “[p]arental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more 

suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while 

others provide the child with the child’s physical and emotional needs” 

(brackets omitted)). 

Father also argues the trial court should not have terminated his 

parental rights because he has regularly paid child support to I.W. Again, the 

trial court clearly factored Father’s payment of child support into its decision, 

finding that Father’s financial support of I.W., without anything more, was not 

sufficient to preserve his parental rights. We see no abuse of discretion in this 

determination. See in re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1119 (holding that parental “duty 
J-S28002-23

- 16 -

encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest 

in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association 

with the child. Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty 

requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance 

in the child’s life.”). 

Based on all of the above, we see no abuse of discretion in the court’s 

conclusion that Father’s parental rights were properly terminated pursuant to 

Section 2511 (a)(1). 

We must therefore turn to the orphans’ court’s conclusion that 

terminating Father’s parental rights to I.W. would best serve I.W.’s needs and 

welfare, as required by Section 2511(b). We also find this conclusion is 

supported by the record and does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

“Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved 

in the inquiry into [the] needs and welfare of the child.” In re C.M.S., 884 

A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). In determining a child’s 

needs and welfare, the orphans’ court is required to consider “whatever bonds 

may exist between the children and [the natural parent], as well as the 

emotional effect that termination will have upon the children.” In re Adoption 

of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 229 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). At the 

same time, the court should also consider the intangibles, such as the “love, 

comfort, security, safety, and stability,” the child might have with the person 

wishing to adopt the child. Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1113 (Pa. 2023).
J-S28002-23

- 17 -

Here, there is no dispute that I.W. does not have a bond with Father. 

She has not seen him or had any contact with him since she was two years 

old. As Mother and the GAL said, I.W. does not even know who Father is. The 

only father I.W. has ever known is Stepfather, who wants to adopt I.W. I.W., 

in turn, has expressed her clear desire to be adopted by Stepfather. Mother, 

the GAL, and I.W.’s attorney all testified as to the bond I.W. has with her 

Stepfather, who is the one who has been parenting I.W. her entire life in 

Father’s absence.

Of course, this is not to say that Father does not love or care for I.W. 

But he does not know her, and she does not know him. Father has not 

performed any non-financial parental duties for I.W. except for during what 

perhaps amounts to a total of a few weeks of I.W.’s life, who is now nine, 

almost ten, years old. The orphans’ court stated that it was “convinced that 

termination of Father’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare 

of [I.W.]” and based on the record before us, we can discern no abuse of 

discretion in that conclusion.

Decree affirmed. 
J-S28002-23

- 18 -

DATE: 10/31/2023