Court Opinion

ID: 9388439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 16:11:05.977677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.284887
License: Public Domain

J-S07016-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: THE ADOPTION OF W.R.S.              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: L.M., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1036 WDA 2021

                Appeal from the Decree Entered August 9, 2021
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County Orphans' Court at
                              No(s): 32-20-0414

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                    FILED: April 20, 2023

        While I agree that the orphans’ court’s decree should be vacated and

the matter remanded, I disagree with the Majority’s analysis and write

separately to explain the alternate basis on which I concur in the result of the

Majority’s decision.

        The majority correctly notes that, in C.M., our High Court explained that

a parent’s efforts to enforce his or her legal custody rights unquestionably

establish the affirmative performance of a positive parental duty, and that

when such action is taken in the face of a custodial parent’s efforts to thwart

access to the child, the attempts to enforce custodial rights provide evidence

that is “highly relevant” to the question of whether the requirements of

subsection 2511(a)(1) have been met. In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07016-22

343, 367 (Pa. 2021). In my view, the Court’s analysis and holding in C.M.

was dictated, in large part, by the fact that mother had erected barriers to

father’s relationship with child, and that father had been actively pursuing

a custody complaint for two months when mother and maternal

grandparents filed their termination petition.     The C.M. Court highlighted

father’s legal efforts as follows:

             In this case, two months prior to the April 15, 2019 filing of
      the termination petition, Father attempted contact, Mother
      refused, and in response, on February 28, 2019, Father initiated
      and actively pursued a complaint for custody, seeking a
      visitation arrangement that could gradually increase to shared
      custody. . . . Father attended the court-ordered mediation
      and conciliation proceedings, suggesting he begin contact
      gradually, and complied with the court’s requirements in the
      support case until Mother withdrew her complaint. . . . [B]efore
      the custody matter and Father’s contact with C.M. could progress
      any further, appellants filed their termination petition.

             Thus, . . . despite Father’s prior lengthy absence, his
      proactive participation in the custody court’s measured
      requirements during the time the case was active
      demonstrates affirmative performance of Father’s parental duties
      to the maximum extent apparent at the time under these
      circumstances, as well as an interest in and respect for the young
      child’s safety and emotional needs. The orphans’ court's finding
      Father “fail[ed] to take further action to have contact with his
      child” is not supported by the record, and conflicts with the court’s
      additional finding the action he did take to attempt contact — i.e.,
      pursuing a legal proceeding to enforce his custodial rights
      — was too late, which conclusion is not supported by the law. . . .
      These determinations were therefore erroneous. Consequently,
      because the record demonstrates Father continuously
      exercised parental duties during the two months preceding
      the filing of the petition, appellants did not meet their burden
      to establish by clear and convincing evidence he failed or refused
      to perform parental duties, or a settled purpose of relinquishment,
      for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing
      of the petition.

                                      -2-
J-S07016-22

C.M., 255 A.3d at 368 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted,

emphasis added).

      However, a few months later, in In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d

580, 594 (Pa. 2021), the High Court was faced with a mere one-week period

between the filing of the custody complaint and the filing of a termination

petition, which is an insufficient time period for any party to litigate a custody

complaint. Consequently, the L.A.K. Court was unable to employ the “actively

pursued” reasoning it used in C.M.       See id.    Moreover, the L.A.K. Court

distinguished C.M. on the basis that there were no attempts by mother to

dissuade father from having contact with his children. See id., 265 A.3d at

594. Thus, the L.A.K. Court was required to address a situation where, in the

critical six-month period prior to the filing of the termination petition, the non-

custodial father performed no parental duties but had nevertheless initiated

legal proceedings by filing a complaint for custody after working diligently to

overcome his own barrier of alcoholism.

      In my view, the L.A.K. Court elected to refine its ruling in C.M. to hold

that the mere filing of a custody complaint in the six-month period prior to the

filing of the termination petition, without more, is sufficient to preclude the

involuntary termination of parental rights under section 2511(a)(1).           The

L.A.K. Court stated:

            As in C.M., this legal action constituted the affirmative
      performance by father of a positive parental duty in the crucial
      six-month period before appellees filed the termination petitions.

                                       -3-
J-S07016-22

      Based upon our ruling in C.M., father must be credited for
      his assertion of custody rights during the crucial six-month
      period.    Thus, appellees failed to provide clear and
      convincing evidence that father failed or refused to
      perform parental duties, or demonstrated a settled purpose
      of relinquishment during the six-month period immediately
      preceding the filing of the termination petitions.

Id. at 594-95 (footnote and unnecessary capitalization omitted, emphasis

added). The L.A.K. Court expressly determined that father’s initiation of legal

proceedings to enforce his custodial rights to his children prevented

termination under section 2511(a)(1). After unequivocally concluding that the

petitioners had not met their burden of proof under section 2511(a)(1), the

High Court went on to discuss the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly,

its discussion of the totality of the circumstances is dicta.

      As I interpret C.M. and L.A.K., where it is undisputed that the non-

custodial parent has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his or her

parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties

and no custody complaint has been filed, the trial court must still examine

the individual circumstances and any explanation offered by the parent to

determine if that evidence, in light of the totality of circumstances, clearly

warrants permitting the involuntary termination of parental rights pursuant to

section 2511(a)(1). C.M., 255 A.3d at 364; see also id. at 365 (requiring

consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including: (1) the parent’s

explanation for his or her conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between

the parent and child, if any, including any efforts made by the parent to

                                      -4-
J-S07016-22

reestablish contact with the child; and (3) the effect that termination of

parental rights would have on the child pursuant to subsection 2511(b)).

      However, pursuant to L.A.K., where the non-custodial parent has

initiated legal proceedings to enforce his or her custodial rights in the critical

six-month period prior to the filing of the termination petition, the petitioners

are precluded from meeting their burden of proving by clear and convincing

evidence that the non-custodial parent failed or refused to perform parental

duties or demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishment during the six-

month period immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition.

See L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 594-95.

      In sum, I believe that the orphans’ court’s determination that Father

“has never performed any parental duties” and “fail[ed] to perform any

parental duties in the six-month period prior to the filing of the termination

petition” is not supported by the record. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/22/21, at

unnumbered 5. As instructed by our Supreme Court in L.A.K., Father must

be credited for his assertion of custody rights during the crucial six-month

period. See L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 594-95. Because the orphans’ court failed

to afford Father such credit, the record does not support the court’s

determination that Mother and Stepfather established by clear and convincing

evidence that Father failed or refused to perform parental duties or a settled

purpose of relinquishment for a period of at least six months immediately

preceding the filing of the termination petition.       See id.; see also 23

                                      -5-
J-S07016-22

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).   For this reason, I would vacate the termination

decree and remand for further proceedings in the custody action.

                                   -6-