Court Opinion

ID: 9892942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 16:10:04.871214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:52.397511
License: Public Domain

J-A23012-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: J.S., A MINOR                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: J.S., FATHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 718 MDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Orphans' Court at
                            No(s): 2022-6805

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                            FILED: OCTOBER 25, 2023

       J.S. (Father) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common

Pleas of Lycoming County Orphans’ Court Division, involuntarily terminating

his parental rights to his minor daughter, J.S. (Child) (born 8/2016). After

careful review, we affirm.

       Mother and Father divorced on February 10, 2020. Mother and B.V.

(Stepfather) were married on September 5, 2020; they have a two-year-old

daughter together. A.V. Child lives with Mother, Stepfather, and A.V.

       In December 2018, Mother filed a protection from abuse (PFA) petition

against Father listing Mother as the protected party. On January 2, 2019, the

court entered a final PFA order, awarding Mother primary custody and partial

custody of Child to Father.           The order permitted Father to have visits

supervised by maternal grandfather.
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A23012-23

       On January 24, 2022, the court extended the final PFA, making it

effective until March 2, 2025. The extended PFA order revoked Father’s partial

physical custody rights and specifically advised that, if Father wished to

reestablish his custody rights, he should do so by filing a custody complaint.

See N.T. Termination Hearing, at 10 (Mother testifying Father told “multiple

times by the judge, even the PFA that we had first time[,] if he wanted to see

[Child] he needed to file for custody”); see also Final PFA Order, 1/24/22.

Father never filed for custody of Child.

       Father last had direct contact with Child in early 2019.1 Mother testified

that Child does not recall who Father is and that there is no parent-child bond

between Father and Child. Id. at 12. Father has never provided financially

for Child. Except for “calling Child on occasion and Father’s family attempting

to send Child gifts,” the only efforts Father has made to contact Child have

been post-petition, sending her a science kit, blanket, laptop, and a card. Id.

at 14-15, 30. See also id. at 39 (Father asking Mother if she “received the

gifts that I had . . . sent to [Child], including letters and everything from the

moment that I receive[d] the T[ermination of] P[arental] R[ights

petition?]”) (emphasis added). The court found “Mother placed no obstacles

in Father’s path that would prevent him from exercising his parental rights,

privileges, and obligations with regard to Child.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/14/23,

at 8 (unpaginated).
____________________________________________

1 Mother’s address was listed on the bottom of the extended PFA order.
Maternal grandparents’ address was also provided on the December 2018
temporary PFA order.
                                           -2-
J-A23012-23

       On May 4, 2022, Mother and B.V. (Stepfather) petitioned to terminate

Father’s parental rights to J.S. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2512(a).2 On November

29, 2022, the court held a termination hearing 3 at which Mother, Stepfather,

Father, pro se,4 and Josselyn Angelo,5 a friend of paternal grandmother’s,

____________________________________________

2 Although not at issue on appeal, Stepfather averred that he intends to adopt

Child. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (petition to terminate
parental right filed by biological parent “is only cognizable when it is
accompanied by a prospective stepparent’s intention to adopt the child”)
(citation omitted).

3 Terra R. Koernig, Esquire, represented Child’s legal and best interests at the

hearing. See In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018) (“[D]uring
contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, where there is no
conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an attorney-guardian ad
litem representing the child’s best interests can also represent the child’s legal
interests.”).
4 Jessica Feese, Esquire, of the Lycoming County Public Defender’s Office, was

appointed to represent Father. On August 23, 2022, Attorney Feese filed a
petition for leave to withdraw from representing Father on the basis that
Father had retained private counsel. Following a hearing, at which Father
failed to appear or participate remotely by phone, the court granted the
petition on the condition that Father’s privately-retained counsel file an entry
of appearance or Father file a pro se entry of appearance. In the event neither
entry of appearance was entered, Attorney Feese would remain counsel of
record to represent him. When Attorney Feese left the Public Defender’s
Office, Jeana Longo, Esquire, entered her appearance for Father on November
8, 2022. Subsequently, on February 7, 2023, Attorney Longo sought leave to
withdraw after Father asked her to do so “because he felt she was not an
honest attorney.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/14/23, at 2 (unpaginated). The court
granted the request on March 20,2023, and entered an order indicating its
intent to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

5 Father presented the testimony of Josselyn Angel who testified that she sent

text messages, on behalf of paternal grandmother, to maternal grandparents
in an effort to set up a date to meet with Child and to get Mother’s address to
send things to Child. N.T. Termination Hearing, 3/24/23, at 103-04.

                                           -3-
J-A23012-23

testified.6   On April 14, 2023, the court entered an order involuntarily

terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1) and

(b) of the Adoption Act.7 Father filed a timely notice of appeal and presents

the following issue for our consideration: “Whether the [trial] court erred in

finding that [Mother] presented clear and convincing evidence that []Father

demonstrated a settled purpose to relinquish parental claims and failure to

perform parental duties.” Father’s Brief, at 4.

       When we review termination of parental rights cases, we “accept the

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are

supported by the record.” In re T.S.M., supra at 267 (citation omitted). “If

the factual findings have support in the record, we then determine if the trial

court committed an error of law or abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of

K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa. Super. 2018). We may reverse a trial court’s

decision in a termination case “for        an    abuse   of   discretion   only   upon

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-

will.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

       Under section 2511, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated analysis

prior to terminating parental rights:

       Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
       seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence
____________________________________________

6 While Father was ordered to appear in person at the termination hearing,

the court permitted him to participate pro se remotely over the phone.

7 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.

                                           -4-
J-A23012-23

     that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds
     for termination delineated in [subs]ection 2511(a). Only if the
     court     determines       that     the      parent’s     conduct
     warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court
     engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to [subs]ection
     2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child
     under the standard of best interests of the child.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007).

     Moreover, under subsection 2511(a)(1), the rights of a parent in regard

to a child may be terminated after a petition filed when “[t]he 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). Additionally, under subsection

2511(b) provides as follows:

     (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.A. § 2511(b) (emphasis added).

     Here, the trial court concluded that Mother proved, by clear and

convincing evidence, grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights under

subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b). Specifically, the court found

     Father has clearly not met []his affirmative duty [of parenting
     Child]. Father has not attended any medical appointments or

                                    -5-
J-A23012-23

      school conference for [] Child. Although Father testified he has
      had frequent contact with Child’s school, the Child’s attorney
      confirmed with the school that all of Father’s contacts were made
      during the 2022-2023 school year, after the filing of the
      [termination p]etition. Father did send gifts for the Child on
      occasion, mostly in 2019/2020 or after the filing of the [p]etition.
      Father has never paid child support or provided for the Child’s
      basic necessities.   Father’s last contact with the child was
      sometime in 2019. Since that time, Father has never made meal
      for [C]hild, never helped her with her homework, and never
      comforted her when she was sick or scared. In short, Father has
      failed to perform any parental duties relative to the physical and
      emotional needs of the Child.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/14/23, at 6-7 (unpaginated).        Most notably, Father

never filed for custody after being told by the trial court in a PFA order to do

so in order to reestablish his custodial rights. The court, in short, did not find

“Father’s explanation or argument[s] persuasive.”          Trial Court Opinion,

4/14/23, at 7. Finally, the court did not believe that Mother crated obstacles

to prevent Father from exercising his custodial rights.

      After a comprehensive review of the record and the notes of testimony

from the termination hearing, we conclude that the trial court’s factual findings

and legal conclusions are supported by the record. Mother proved, by clear

and convincing evidence, that for a period in excess of six months, Father

“evidenced both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to Child and

. . . failed to perform his parental duties.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1). Thus,

we affirm. In re Adoption of K.C., supra.

                                      -6-
J-A23012-23

       Order affirmed.8

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/25/2023

____________________________________________

8  Although Father does not argue that the court erred in terminating his
parental rights under subsection 2511(b), because termination is a bifurcated
process, we will address the issue. We likewise find that the court’s decision
on this basis was supported in the record. Specifically, Mother testified that
Child does not recall Father and that there is no bond between Father and
Child. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 3/29/23, at 12. Child calls Stepfather
“daddy,” id. at 59, Stepfather “consider[s him]self a father figure in [Child’s]
life, id. at 58-59, and the two have established a parent-child relationship.
Id. at 60-61. Stepfather intends to adopt Child and considers her “one of his
own [children].” Id. at 59. Finally, Child resides with Mother, Stepfather, and
Child’s half-sister, A.V., in a home where her developmental, physical and
emotional needs are being met. In the Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1106
(Pa. 2023) (under subsection 2511(b), “child’s emotional needs and welfare
include intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability[,] . . . i.e.,
specific needs and aspects of the child's welfare,” must be considered).
Finally, Mother and Stepfather both testified that terminating Father’s parental
rights to Child would be in Child’s best interest. See N.T. Termination Hearing,
3/29/23, at 15, 59.
                                           -7-