J

- S52028

- 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: A.K.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: M.W., JR

. No. 657 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Decree March 22 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2012 of 2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 24, 2017
M.W. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to A.K.W. (DOB: August 2009), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 of the Adoption Act. 1 After careful consideration, we af firm based on the well

reasoned trial court opinions of the Honorable Jay J. Hoberg. J.D. (“Mother”) and Father had a toxic relationship, which consisted of many verbal and physical disputes. Depending on the circumstances of Mother and Father’s relatio nship, Mother and A.K.W. went back and forth between living with A.K.W.’s maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents from August 2009 until May 2010, when Mother went to basic training for the U.S. National Guard. Father lived with A.K.W.’s paternal

____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101 et seq

.J

- S52028

- 17

- 2

-

grandparents, and he would perform parental duties when A.K.W. was at the paternal grandparents’ home. While Mother was at basic training, A.K.W. was in the care of the maternal grandparents, who permitted the paternal grandparents to have custody of A.K .W. on alternate weekends. Father was charged with burglary and incarcerated on September 8, 2010. In October 2010, Mother returned home and resumed raising A.K.W. Mother and A.K.W. lived primarily with the maternal grandparents, but Mother shared some periods of A.K.W.’s caretaking with paternal grandparents and maternal uncle. This custody arrangement was in place for more than a year while Father remained incarcerated. Mother began a relationship with another man in January 2012. Mother, her para mour, and A.K.W. lived together for a year. Mother allowed paternal grandparents to have periodic custody of A.K.W during that time. Mother’s relationship with her paramour ended in 2013, and she went back to living with maternal grandparents, but contin ued to allow paternal grandparents to have periodic custody of A.K.W. Thereafter, Mother began dating T.D., and she moved in with him in October 2013. Father was living with paternal grandparents at this time and had contact with A.K.W. when Mother bro ught her to paternal grandparents’ home, until January 2014 when Father began a relationship with another woman. Mother disapproved of Father’s paramour because A.K.W. began imitating inappropriate behavior she claimed to have seen Father’s paramourJ

- S52028

- 17

- 3

-

do. As a result, Mother communicated that she would not allow A.K.W. to be with Father when he was with his paramour. Accordingly, Father did not see A.K.W. from January 2014 until March 2014, although he claims this was because Mother ignored his messages. One night in March 2014, Father and his friend went to Mother’s house and demanded custody of A.K.W. Mother refused, an argument followed, and Father’s friend put Mother in a chokehold. Father left the residence with A.K.W., and Mother reported the inci dent to the police. The police determined that A.K.W. was at the paternal grandparents’ home, and returned A.K.W. to Mother’s custody. Thereafter, Father was served with a temporary protection from abuse (“PFA”) order, which became final after a hearing o n June 11, 2014. The PFA addressed custody by allowing Father to have partial physical custody and visitation rights as the parties agreed or until further order of the Court after a family business court presentation, custody conference, or a hearing reg arding custody of the minor child. PFA Order, 6/11/14, at 3. After the incident in March 2014, Father had no contact with Mother or A.K.W. until April 2015. Mother continued to coordinate visits with A.K.W. and her paternal grandparents, meeting them in public places because she did not want them to know where she and A.K.W. lived. On April 28, 2015, Mother called paternal grandparents to let A.K.W. wish paternal grandfather a happy birthday. While on speakerphone, Father spoke briefly to A.K.W.
Acc ordingly, Mother ended the phone call and reported a PFA violation.J

- S52028

- 17

- 4

-

Mother ceased all contact with paternal grandparents, and approximately one week later, paternal grandfather made a Facebook post promising a reward in exchange for information regarding Mother’s location. Father shared this post on his personal Facebook account, which was reported to the police as a second PFA violation, and the PFA was extended for three
years. Mother and A.K.W have not had any contact with Father or the paternal gran dparents since the second PFA violation. On September 12, 2015, Mother married T.D. On September 21, 2016, Mother and T.D. filed a petition for adoption and involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights. 2 Father was provided notice of the terminat ion hearing on December 2, 2016. Father notified the court of his intention to contest the adoption proceeding, and the court appointed him counsel, as well as a guardian ad litem for A.K.W. A hearing took place on February 27, 2017, and the court ultima tely terminated Father’s parental rights to A.K.W. in a decree entered on March 22, 2017. On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review: Did the court err in finding that Father faced no barriers to the exercise of his parent

- child relatio nship or that if such barriers existed, that he did not confront them with reasonable firmness?

____________________________________________ 2 Mother and T.D. amended their petition for adoption and involuntary termination of Fa ther’s parental rights on October 7, 2016; however, the amendment did not make any substantive changes to the original petition.J

- S52028

- 17

- 5

-

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. When reviewing a trial court’s order terminating parental rights, our scope of review is broad and comprehensive, however, our standard of
review is narrow. In re C.M.S. , 884 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2005). “We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached.” In re Adoption of K.J. , 936 A.2d 1128, 1131 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted). We accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record

. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). If the record supports the factual findings, we must affirm the trial court’s decision, even though the record could support an opposite result, unless we find the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. In re Adoption of
K.J. , 936 A.2d at 1131. After thorough review of Father’s arguments, the record, and controlling case law, we rely upon the well

- reasoned opinions of the Honorable Jay J. Hoberg in disposing of Father’s claims. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/22/17; see also Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/17. Mother did not create insurmountable barriers to the relationship between Father and A.K.W. Trial Court Opinion, 3/22/17, at 7. Moreover, many barriers to Father’s relationship w ith A.K.W. were of his own creation. Although the obstacles Father faced were not inconsequential, he did not confront those barriers with reasonable firmness for the reasons set forth in Judge Hoberg’s opinions. We conclude, therefore, that the trial co urt properly found that theJ

- S52028

- 17

- 6

-

evidence was sufficient to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act. Accordingly, we affirm the decree involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to A .K.W., and direct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Hoberg’s opinions in the event of further proceedings. See Memorandum Opinion and Decree, 3/22/17; Opinion Sur Appeal, 5/11/17. Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/24/2017