Court Opinion

ID: 9891763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 16:12:32.979422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:21.987773
License: Public Domain

J-A18013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 ADOPTION OF: N.K.                      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: B.K.                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 177 WDA 2023

           Appeal from the Decree Entered November 14, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Orphans' Court at
                           No(s): 32-22-0496

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                   FILED: OCTOBER 19, 2023

     Appellant, B.K. (“Natural Father”), appeals from the orphans’ court’s

November 14, 2022 decree terminating his parental rights to N.K. (“Child”),

born in January of 2015. We affirm.

     The orphans’ court summarized the background of this case as follows:
     I.    Procedural History

     On July 11, 2022, the Petitioners, [D.T.] (“Mother”) and [B.T.]
     (“Stepfather” or “Proposed Adoptive Father”) [(collectively
     “Petitioners”)] filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of the
     Parental Rights of [Natural Father]. This [c]ourt, by Order dated
     July 12, 2022, appointed … [c]ounsel for [N.K]. A hearing on the
     Petition was originally scheduled for September 7, 2022. At the
     September 7, 2022[] hearing[,] Natural Father was present and
     advised the [c]ourt that he opposes the Petition. The hearing was
     then continued[,] and this [c]ourt appointed … [c]ounsel for …
     Natural Father. A hearing was held on November 8, 2022, and all
     parties and their [c]ounsel were present. … Petitioners each
     testified and also presented testimony of [H.C.], Maternal
     Grandmother. Counsel for [N.K.] called no witnesses. Natural
     Father testified and presented to [sic] additional witnesses or
     evidence….
J-A18013-23

     II.   Factual Summary

     [D.T.] is the biological mother of [N.K]…. [B.T.] is Mother’s
     husband, Stepfather to [N.K.], and the proposed adoptive father.
     … Respondent[] is [B.K.] and is [N.K.’s] biological father. Mother
     and Natural Father were involved in a relationship that … resulted
     in the conception of [N.K]. Mother[,] having determined that she
     was pregnant[,] notified Natural Father. Natural Father was
     incarcerated at the time [N.K.] was born. Natural Father is listed
     on [N.K.’s] Birth Certificate. Natural Father has been incarcerated
     for a “good part” of [N.K.’s] life. As of the present day, based on
     the testimony of Natural Father, he is still on parole.

     Due to addiction issues of Mother and Natural Father, [N.K.]
     resided with Maternal Grandmother from a date in 2015 until
     2019. Since 2019, [N.K.] has been in the custody of Mother.
     While [N.K.] resided with Maternal Grandmother, Mother would
     visit with [N.K.] as “much as possible.” Additionally, Natural
     Father moved in with Maternal Grandmother and [N.K.] in
     September 2016, where he resided until December 2016.
     Maternal Grandmother testified that[,] after Natural Father moved
     out, he did not request any contact with [N.K]. She further
     testified that he would call occasionally, but the purpose of the
     calls was to apologize for taking money and … he would not ask
     to speak to [N.K]. Mother testified that Natural Father’s contact
     with [N.K.] has been “sporadic” and that he has only had visits
     with [N.K.] a “handful of times.” Natural Father’s last visit with
     [N.K.] was in 2020 when Mother and [N.K.] visited him. The visit
     lasted approximately one (1) hour; [N.K.] was described to have
     more interaction with Natural Father’s other child than with
     Natural Father. After 2020, Natural Father reached out one time
     in an attempt to see [N.K]. That occurred approximately 6-7
     months ago by text message. [Stepfather] responded to the text
     message by indicating that they would deal with his request in
     [c]ourt. After the filing of the Petition, the parties described an
     interaction that occurred at the Blairsville Walmart where Natural
     Father confronted Mother and Stepfather, and [N.K.] ran away.

     Approximately fifteen (15) months after [N.K.’s] birth, Mother and
     Step[father], her current husband, began a relationship.
     Stepfather has been involved in [N.K.’s] life since she was
     approximately fifteen (15) months old. The relationship between
     Stepfather and [N.K.] was described as “inseparable.” Stepfather
     loves her, helps her with school work, and enjoys activities with
     her like ridding [sic] quads. [N.K.] refers to Stepfather as “Dad”

                                    -2-
J-A18013-23

      and … Natural Father [by his first name]. [N.K.] knows that
      Natural Father is her father, but appears to have no bond or
      relationship with him. Stepfather has provided financial support,
      educational support, love, security, stability, and emotional
      support to [N.K]. The testimony as presented was that Natural
      Father has never provided any financial support for [N.K.], has
      never sent or provided gifts, birthday cards, or birthday presents.

      Mother testified that[,] with the exception of the response to the
      text message about 6-7 months ago, she has never refused
      Natural Father contact with [N.K]. She has not blocked his phone
      or [in] any way prevented him from contacting her. Mother did
      testify that she may have blocked Natural Father from her social
      media accounts. Natural Father testified that he was texting
      Mother in 2020[,] and would even FaceTime Mother on his drives
      to work. However, this communication stopped when it appeared
      to cause conflict in Mother’s marriage.

      Counsel for [N.K.] … presented no testimony. However, she did
      advocate that it was the position of [N.K.] that she wants to be
      adopted by Stepfather.

Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 2/10/23, at 1-3 (internal citations omitted).

      On November 14, 2022, the orphans’ court entered a decree terminating

Natural Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b).

On December 12, 2022, Natural Father’s counsel, Bradley M. Ophaug, Esq.,

filed a motion to withdraw. The orphans’ court scheduled a hearing on January

11, 2023, to consider the motion.      However, neither Natural Father nor

Attorney Ophaug attended the hearing.       Nevertheless, the orphans’ court

entered an order that same day granting Attorney Ophaug’s motion to

withdraw and appointing Natural Father new counsel.          In addition, the

orphans’ court also reinstated Natural Father’s appellate rights nunc pro tunc.

On February 9, 2023, Natural Father filed a notice of appeal and a concise

                                     -3-
J-A18013-23

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i).

      Presently, Natural Father raises a single issue for our review:

      Whether the [orphans’] [c]ourt erred in terminating [Natural
      Father’s] parental rights to [N.K.], because … Petitioners failed to
      meet their burden by clear and convincing evidence, including, but
      not limited to[,] failing to identify how termination of [Natural
      Father’s] parental rights would impact [N.K.], and whether a bond
      existed between [Natural Father] and [N.K].

Natural Father’s Brief at 3.

      On appeal, Natural Father complains that the orphans’ court erred in

terminating his parental rights “because Stepfather and … Mother did not meet

their burden by clear and convincing evidence when it came to the issue of

how this termination would impact N.K.”       Id. at 8.   According to Natural

Father, “there was no evidence presented to the [orphans’] [c]ourt in regards

to the emotional and mental impact that termination of his parental rights

would have on N.K. … [T]here was not proper evidence provided to the [c]ourt

to show whether there was a bond between [Natural Father] and N.K.” Id.

(emphasis in original).    Natural Father insists that a bonding assessment

should have been conducted, and says that Petitioners should have provided

testimony from a mental health professional on whether a bond exists. Id. at

16. In addition, he claims that Stepfather and Mother resisted his efforts to

see N.K. Id. at 8.

      Initially, we deem Natural Father’s claims waived due to his failure to

specifically raise them in his concise statement filed pursuant to Rule

                                     -4-
J-A18013-23

1925(a)(2)(i). In his concise statement, he vaguely complained that “Mother

and Step[father] did not meet their burden of clear and convincing evidence

to warrant a termination of his parental rights to the above-named child.” See

Concise Statement, 2/9/23, at 1 (emphasis in original).          Problematically,

Natural Father failed to specify how Mother and Stepfather failed to meet this

burden, or identify any of the specific errors that he complains of now.

Accordingly, these claims are waived.       See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The

Statement shall concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to

assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.”);

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not

raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are

waived.”); In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“When a court

has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for

meaningful review. A Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court

to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no

Concise Statement at all.”) (cleaned up).

      Nevertheless, even if not waived, no relief would be due. In reviewing

Natural Father’s arguments, we are mindful that:
      In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
      appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the
      decree of the termination court is supported by competent
      evidence. When applying this standard, the appellate court must
      accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
      determinations if they are supported by the record. Where the
      trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an
      appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it
      has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.

                                      -5-
J-A18013-23

     An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
     reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
     facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
     may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
     of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
     will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
     courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
     hearings.

     In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court
     must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make decisions
     concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child with
     the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care, protection, and
     support.    Termination of parental rights has significant and
     permanent consequences for both the parent and child. As such,
     the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to
     establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence,
     which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
     as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
     hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

     Furthermore, we recognize that:
     Termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the
     Adoption Act[, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2101 et seq]. Subsection (a) provides
     eleven enumerated grounds describing particular conduct of a
     parent which would warrant involuntary termination.                In
     evaluating whether the petitioner proved grounds under §
     2511(a), the trial court must focus on the parent’s conduct and
     avoid using a balancing or best interest approach. If the trial court
     determines the petitioner established grounds for termination
     under § 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court then
     must assess the petition under § 2511(b), which focuses on the
     child’s needs and welfare.

     This Court need only agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a),
     in addition to § 2511(b), in order to affirm the termination of
     parental rights.

Id. at 830 (cleaned up).

                                     -6-
J-A18013-23

       Here, the orphans’ court terminated Natural Father’s parental rights

pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) and (b).1 Father only challenges the orphans’

court’s decision under Section 2511(b). Section 2511(b) provides:

       (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. § 2511(b).

       With respect to Section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has explained that

“[t]he plain language of Section 2511(b) clearly mandates that, in assessing

the petition to terminate parental rights, the ‘primary consideration’ must be

the child’s ‘developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare.’”

Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023).          In undertaking this

assessment, “courts should consider the matter from the child’s perspective,

placing her developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare above

concerns for the parent[,]” and “the court must determine each child’s specific

____________________________________________

1 See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (“The rights of a parent in regard to a child

may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (1)
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.”).

                                           -7-
J-A18013-23

needs.” Id. at 1105, 1106 (citations and footnote omitted). “[T]he child’s

‘emotional needs’ and ‘welfare’ include ‘intangibles such as love, comfort,

security, and stability.’” Id. at 1106 (citation omitted). In addition, “if the

child has any bond with the biological parent, the court must conduct an

analysis of that bond….” Id. (citation omitted). “It is only a necessary and

beneficial bond, after all, that should be maintained when Section 2511(b)

mandates the child’s needs and welfare are of ‘primary’ importance.          …

[S]everance of a necessary and beneficial relationship is the kind of loss that

would predictably cause ‘extreme emotional consequences’ or significant,

irreparable harm.” Id. at 1109-10 (citations omitted). See also In re K.Z.S.,

946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“In cases where there is no evidence

of any bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no

bond exists. The extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends

on the circumstances of the particular case.”).

      Here, with respect to Section 2511(b), the orphans’ court determined:
      In [N.K.]’s entire life, her contact with Natural Father has been
      “limited” at best. Specifically, she has had no communication with
      Natural Father since a date in 2020. While [N.K.] knows Natural
      Father as her birth father, and recognizes him, there was no
      evidence presented to indicate that there is a bond of any sort. In
      fact, the evidence supports a conclusion that there is no bond.
      Specifically, the last time [N.K.] saw Natural Father is when he
      confronted Mother and Stepfather at Walmart, and [N.K.] ran
      away and hid. Stepfather has been the father figure in [N.K.’s]
      life since she was fifteen (15) months old. He has provided
      financially for Mother and [N.K]. Additionally, based on the
      testimony, this [c]ourt finds that Stepfather provides certain
      intangibles necessary for [N.K]. Those intangibles include but are
      not limited to love, comfort, education, security, and stability. As
      such, this [c]ourt finds by clear and convincing evidence that the

                                     -8-
J-A18013-23

      termination of Natural Father’s rights and subsequent adoption by
      Stepfather furthers the developmental, physical, and emotional
      needs and welfare of [N.K.] and is in [N.K.’s] best interests.

OCO at 6-7.

      Here, the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that no bond

exists between Natural Father and N.K. At the termination hearing, Mother

testified:

      [Petitioners’ counsel:] And after 2017[,] do you recall how many
      times, if any, [Natural Father] physically saw the child?

      [Mother:] Not very many. Maybe a handful of times.

      [Petitioners’ counsel:] And under what circumstances would he
      see her?

      [Mother:] He would see [her] at my parents’ house. I would take
      [N.K.] down to [Natural Father’s] dad’s house. She didn’t really
      have anything to do with [Natural Father]. It was more his son …
      that she was more comfortable with. She would be excited to see
      him versus see[ing Natural Father].

      … [N.K.] knows that [Natural Father’s] her dad, you know, but she
      just is not comfortable around him due to hi[s] not being there.
      She knows he’s her dad, and that’s it. There’s no father-daughter
      bond like there is with [Stepfather].

      [Petitioners’ counsel:] So during any interactions that you’ve
      observed between [N.K.] and [Natural Father], how would you
      describe those interactions?

      [Mother:] Very distant. You know, like I said, … she would hug
      him just because I would say give him a hug; however, it wouldn’t
      be like a father-and-daughter bond should be. Like I said, … she
      was more excited to see his son.

                                    ***

      [Petitioners’ counsel:] Do you recall the last time that [Natural
      Father] would have seen [N.K.]?

      [Mother:] It was a couple years. I lived in Washington, PA. I
      finally got [Stepfather] on board to be able to bring her down to

                                    -9-
J-A18013-23

     see [Natural Father], and like I said, she was interacting more
     with [Natural Father’s son]. It was all about [the son]. I mean,
     she didn’t really care for [Natural Father].

                                      ***
     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Now, you testified that you don’t believe
     from your observations that there is a parent-child bond between
     [N.K.] and [Natural Father]. Do you believe that she has a parent-
     child bond with anyone other than you?

     [Mother:] My husband[, Stepfather].

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] And can you describe why you think that
     there’s a parent-child bond between her and [Stepfather]?

     [Mother:] He has been an active, supportive, financial role in her
     life since she’s been 15 months old.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] How does she react to your husband?

     [Mother:] They’re best friends. They’re inseparable. They are the
     bond of what a father-and-daughter bond should be.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Does she show your husband affection?

     [Mother:] Absolutely.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] And is that without you directing her to hug
     your husband?

     [Mother:] Absolutely.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Does she initiate the affection?

     [Mother:] Yes, she does.

                                      ***

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Now, after the filing of this petition, did you
     have any contact or see [Natural Father]?

     [Mother:] We seen [sic] him in Walmart. … I think he came out
     of the back way bathroom or something, and he, you know, said
     things to [Stepfather] that, you know, to me would have escalated
     had I not stepped in between them, not so much on [Stepfather’s]
     part, but you could tell [Natural Father] was very aggressive, not
     aggressive, but angry, upset. So I tried to de-escalate the
     situation, I did so, and we all left.

                                     - 10 -
J-A18013-23

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Was [N.K.] with you?

     [Mother:] She was.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Did she see that altercation?

     [Mother:] As soon as she seen [sic] [Natural Father], she literally
     ran and hid behind a shelf. She was terrified.

     [Petitioners’ counsel:] Was that before there were any words
     spoken between--

     [Mother:] I think as soon as she saw [Natural Father], I think she
     ran. I didn’t realize he was behind us until I heard him speak, and
     … by that time[, N.K.] was behind a shelf, and I de-escalated the
     situation. We got [N.K]. We all … left.

N.T., 11/8/22, at 8-10, 12-14.

     In addition to Mother’s testimony, Stepfather testified as follows:
     [Petitioners’ counsel]: Okay. Can you tell me if you have ever
     observed any visits between [N.K.] and [Natural Father]?

     [Stepfather]: Yes, I have.

     [Petitioners’ counsel]: Could you tell me about those and when
     they would have occurred?

     [Stepfather]: The last one I can remember was probably the one
     my wife was telling you about[,] probably about two years ago
     back in 2020[,] when we were at [Natural Father’s] house. I think
     that’s [Natural Father’s] house. [N.K.] was, like my wife said,
     more interested in her brother, [Natural Father’s] son, more than
     [Natural Father].

     [Petitioners’ counsel]: Do you recall about how long the visit
     lasted?

     [Stepfather]: I would say probably about an hour, hour or so.

     [Petitioners’ counsel]: Were there any visits that you were present
     for before that one?

     [Stepfather]: Not that I recall.

     [Petitioners’ counsel]: So, to the best of your knowledge, you were
     only present for one of them?

                                    - 11 -
J-A18013-23

      [Stepfather]: Correct.

      [Petitioners’ counsel]: And during that time, did you see [N.K.] on
      her own initiate any affection toward [Natural Father]?

      [Stepfather]: No.

                                       ***
      [Petitioners’ counsel]: Can you tell the [c]ourt what your
      relationship with [N.K.] is like?

      [Stepfather]: Very inseparable. I love that little girl. Just a father-
      daughter relationship.    I mean, we do everything together,
      schoolwork, ride quads. I raised her since she was about 18
      months old, so…[.]

Id. at 26-27, 28-29.

      Maternal Grandmother, who lives next to Petitioners, also confirmed

that the bond between N.K. and Stepfather is “great.” Id. at 41, 42. She

described that “[t]hey’re always together, laughing, carrying on, having fun.”

Id. at 42. In comparison, she recounted that, the last time that she saw N.K.

with Natural Father, N.K. did not pay attention to him. Id. at 41.

      Finally, N.K.’s attorney made the following statement on the record at

the hearing:
      Your Honor, obviously [N.K.] is not present due to the nature of
      these proceedings. I did have a chance to meet with her, and I
      have spoken with her on the phone. She has expressed to me
      that she very much looks to [Stepfather] as her father and she
      very much would like to make a permanent relationship moving
      forward.

      She’s also indicated to me when we’ve spoken that she refers to
      [Natural Father by his first name]. She never mentions him as
      dad. She called him [by his first name] every single time I asked
      a question.

                                      - 12 -
J-A18013-23

      Now, when I would talk about [Stepfather]…, she would refer to
      him as dad, and she would indicate that that’s who she views as
      dad.

      And she would clam up or get very shy and was not too
      forthcoming when I would ask about [Natural Father], and it
      seemed as though she was a little bit afraid to speak about him,
      but she did indicate to me that she very much would like to be
      adopted by [Stepfather].

Id. at 55.

      Based on the foregoing, even if properly preserved, we would conclude

that the record supports the orphans’ court’s determination that no bond

exists between N.K. and Natural Father. As Petitioners observe, “there is no

bond between Natural Father and [N.K.], and therefore, it is illogical to ask

whether N.K. would be emotionally impacted by severing the bond between

her and Natural Father when such a bond does not exist in the first place.”

Petitioners’ Brief at 4; see also id. at 3-4 (“It is true that the evidence

presented on the issue of bond and the effect of severing the bond in this

matter was limited. The reason for this is that there is not much that can be

said under the circumstances. If there was a history of significant interactions

between Natural Father and N.K., more testimony on the potential existence

of a bond could have been presented.          However, that is not the case.”).

Accord In re K.Z.S., supra (“In cases where there is no evidence of any

bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond

exists. The extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends on

the circumstances of the particular case.”).

                                     - 13 -
J-A18013-23

       Furthermore, as to Natural Father’s           insistence that a bonding

assessment should have occurred and mental health professionals should

have testified, we note that no expert testimony is required and Section

2511(b) “does not require a formal bonding evaluation.” See In re Z.P., 994

A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Interest

of: J.D., 2021 WL 5326477, at *5 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 16, 2021) (“[T]o the

extent [the m]other argues that an expert opinion or formal analysis is

necessary, that requirement is not borne out by our case law.”) (citation

omitted).2

       Finally, to the extent Natural Father claims that Petitioners resisted his

efforts to see N.K., we would similarly determine that no relief is due on this

basis. The orphans’ court explained:
       Natural Father also testified that he believed that Stepfather
       interfered with his ability to assert his parental rights. This [c]ourt
       finds no credible evidence to support that claim. There is[,] and
       has always been[,] a perfectly viable option for Natural Father to
       assert his parental rights, that being a custody action, which he
       failed to pursue. In fact, the mere filing of a complaint may have
       constituted an affirmative performance of a positive parental duty
       which would have negated termination under [S]ection
       2511(a)(1).

       Natural Father has had little to no involvement in [N.K.]’s life. He
       failed to utilize resources that may have been available even when
       he was incarcerated to maintain any relationship with [N.K]. He
       never wrote to [N.K.], never sent any cards, never made any calls

____________________________________________

2  See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating that an unpublished non-precedential
memorandum decision of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019 may be
cited for its persuasive value).

                                          - 14 -
J-A18013-23

       to speak with [N.K].[3] Natural Father did testify that he had
       mailed letters to Mother’s Aunt and that those letters addressed
       [N.K].    However, this [c]ourt is free to make credibility
       determinations and finds that testimony as to the letters to the
       extent that they may have included communication to [N.K.] was
       not credible.

OCO at 6 (internal citation omitted). Because of Natural Father’s failure to

pursue custody of N.K., along with his lack of effort to communicate with her,

we would be unconvinced by his argument that Mother and Stepfather are to

blame for his not having a relationship with N.K. Accordingly, we affirm the

orphans’ court’s decree.

       Decree affirmed.

Date: 10/19/2023

____________________________________________

3 See N.T. at 10-11 (Mother’s testifying that, between 2020 and mid-2022,

Natural Father sent N.K. no birthday cards, no birthday presents, and no
letters, and made no phone calls asking to speak to N.K.); but see id. at 34-
35 (Stepfather’s stating that, while Natural Father has sent N.K. no letters,
birthday cards, or presents, he may have called to speak to N.K. “once or
twice” when he first got out of jail years ago). See also id. at 23-24 (Mother’s
conveying that, although she blocked Natural Father on social media, she
never blocked him from calling her).

                                          - 15 -