Opinion ID: 2309520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant Cambria County Welfare Services' Appeal

Text: The record also supports the hearing court's determination that Rochelle did not refuse or fail to perform her parental duties toward Jonathan. Rochelle was forced to relinquish her child temporarily during a period of personal crisis. As the hearing court found: [Rochelle] felt secure in the belief that the placing of the children with the Agency did not pose a threat to her parental rights to Jonathan. Her subsequent actions show that she attempted to re-establish a home for her son in New York City and attempted to comply with welfare services' requirements. Upon her return to Pennsylvania, she went directly to welfare services and again requested the custody of her child. Thus, Rochelle's actions to regain custody of Jonathan during her absence from Pennsylvania are in sharp contrast to John's inaction and lack of concern toward Josephine and Michael during the same period. This Court has often recognized the seriousness of a finding of abandonment. See, e.g., Re: Adoption of M. T.T., supra; In re Fritz, 460 Pa. 265, 333 A.2d 466 (1975); McAhren Adoption Case, supra; In re: Adoption of R.I., 455 Pa. 29, 312 A.2d 601 (1973); Sarver Adoption Case, 444 Pa. 507, 281 A.2d 890 (1971). In Sarver, we stated: The termination by the law of a natural parent's rights to [her] child on the grounds of abandonment is one of the most severe steps the court can take. The finality of the termination and the harsh connotations of a finding of `abandonment' carry great emotional impact on both the child and the parent. For this reason, our law has been unwilling [to find abandonment] unless the record clearly warrants such a finding. 444 Pa. at 509-10, 281 A.2d at 891. Thus, we have refused to find abandonment when a parent has failed to contact welfare services for a period of six months if the lack of contact is caused by a parent's personal crisis and if the parent uses all reasonable means available to preserve his parent-child relationship. Re: Adoption of M.T.T., supra. As we stated in M.T. T. : Appellant was facing a crisis situation . . . and had no means to care for or support his child. However, these circumstances alone cannot justify a finding of abandonment. McCray Adoption Case, 460 Pa. 210, 331 A.2d 652 (1975); McAhren Adoption Case, supra; Appeal of Diane B., supra, 456 Pa. at 434, 321 A.2d at 620. Abandonment may be found only if [a parent] fails to use all available resources to preserve his parental relationship. 467 Pa. at 97, 354 A.2d at 568. See McCray Adoption Case, supra, 460 Pa. at 217, 331 A.2d at 655. Here, the evidence supports the hearing court's determination that Rochelle used all available resources to preserve her parental relationship during a period of personal crisis. This Court may not reverse that determination, particularly given the seriousness of a finding of abandonment and the limited scope of our review. Decree affirmed. POMEROY, J., filed a concurring opinion. MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which NIX, J., joined. O'BRIEN, J., dissents from part II of the opinion.