In Re: Adopt. of A.H.B., Appeal of: J.M.

J-S27013-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.H.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: J.M., FATHER : : : : : No. 459 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered March 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2022-00743

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 18, 2023

J.M. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered on March 1, 2023, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans’ Court, which granted the petition of J.S. (“Mother”) and N.S. (“Stepfather”) (collectively the “Petitioners”), for termination of Father’s parental rights to his minor daughter, A.H.B. (“Child”) (born in August of 2012), pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. After careful review, we affirm.

The orphans’ court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we need not reproduce herein. See Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 4/26/23, at 1-20. Briefly, Mother and Father were never married. Mother became pregnant with Child at the age of 15 and ended her relationship with Father shortly thereafter. Father believed Mother had a miscarriage and was not informed of Child’s birth at the time. Father

J-S27013-23

met Child for the first time in September of 2020, when she was eight years old. Mother and Father decided to live together and raise Child together as a family. They moved in with Father’s friends for the first few months. Father almost immediately became abusive toward both Mother and Child. He stopped working, and Mother provided for them financially. In January of 2021, Mother, Father, and Child moved in with Maternal Grandmother and Step-Grandfather for approximately six weeks. Father did not perform any parental duties for Child. He found Child’s behavior to be annoying and gave her CBD gummies to calm her down. Mother and Father then moved into a row house, but Child stayed with Maternal Grandmother because the row house was not suitable for a child and Mother did not believe it was safe for Child to be with Father. Father did not visit Child or provide any financial support for Child while she was living with Maternal Grandmother.

On June 30, 2021, Mother and Father moved out of the row house and into an apartment where Child joined them. During the first night in the new apartment, Mother and Father began arguing and Father threw Mother into a wall and to the ground. He inflicted bruises and cuts on Mother and broke one of Mother’s fingers. Child witnessed the altercation. Mother obtained a temporary protection from abuse (“PFA”) order against Father. On September 7, 2021, a final PFA order was entered, which remains in effect until September 7, 2024. Child is not a protected party in the PFA order. Mother has not had any contact with Father since the incident on the night of June 30, 2021. Also, since that time, Father has not reached out in any manner to

-2-

J-S27013-23

Child, nor has he paid any child support for her. He has not sent any gifts or cards to Child, has not inquired about her schooling or medical status, and has not attempted to file for custody. Child is afraid of Father.

Shortly after June 30, 2021, Stepfather moved in with Mother and Child and began financially supporting Child. Mother and Stepfather married on February 21, 2022. Stepfather and Child adore each other. On March 22, 2022, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition for adoption and termination of Father’s parental rights. The orphans’ court appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) to represent Child’s best interests and separate counsel to represent her legal interests. Both the GAL and Child’s legal counsel support the termination of Father’s parental rights and report that there is no bond between Father and Child. Hearings were held on the termination petition on December 2, 2022, and on January 26, 2023. The orphans’ court issued a decree terminating Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) on March 1, 2023.

Father filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The orphans’ court filed a responsive opinion on April 26, 2023. Herein, Father presents the following four issues for our review:

I. Whether the court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights to … Child because the Petitioner[s] failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s parental rights should be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511(a)(1).

II. Whether the court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights to … Child because the Petitioner[s] failed to prove by

-3-

J-S27013-23

clear and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511(b) that it is in … Child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated.

III. Whether the court erred in failing to consider that Father was not told of … Child’s existence until she was eight years old and that he did not have scientific proof that he was … Child’s biological father until several months after the petition for adoption and termination of parental rights was filed with the court.

IV. Whether the court erred in failing to consider the effect of the [PFA] order on Father’s attempts to have contact with … Child.

Father’s Brief at 8 (cleaned up).

We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the following standard:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:

The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”

Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)). The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented

-4-

J-S27013-23

and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

We are guided further by the following: Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, which requires a bifurcated analysis.

Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated process 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 that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 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 Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; other citations omitted). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. R.N.J., 985 A.2d at 276.

Instantly, we analyze the orphans’ court’s decision to terminate under Sections 2511(a)(1) and (b), which provide as follows:

-5-

J-S27013-23

(a) General rule.--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.

***

(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(a)(1), (b).

On appeal, Father essentially avers that the orphans’ court erred in concluding that the Petitioners demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that he evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim to Child. Father avers that he was not able to perform any parental duties to Child because of the PFA order that Mother obtained against him. Father’s Brief at 15, 18. He claims that he took steps to try to have contact with Child, but that each attempt was thwarted by Mother and Stepfather. Id. at 18. Father stresses that he “only had a few months to form a relationship and bond” with Child due to Mother’s keeping Child’s existence a secret from him for the first seven years of her life, and he accuses the orphans’ court of

-6-

J-S27013-23

being “dismissive” of this fact. Id. at 19. Additionally, Father states that he could not afford to retain an attorney, that he was not aware of the Self-Help Center at the Lancaster County Courthouse, and that he was under the impression that he needed to wait until the termination proceedings were concluded before filing a custody action. Id. at 18.

In reviewing Father’s arguments, we have considered the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey J. Reich of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. Judge Reich’s opinion thoroughly explains the basis for his conclusion that the Petitioners established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father’s parental rights with respect to Child should be involuntarily terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b). See OCO at 23-27. Judge Reich points out that Father has not seen Child, nor has he performed any parental duties, since July 1, 2021. Id. at 23. Additionally, he opines that during the time that the family was intact, Father performed minimal to no parental duties and failed to provide Child with love, comfort, protection, or support. Id. at 24. Notably, Judge Reich recognizes that Father was not aware of Child’s existence for many years; however, he emphasizes that when Father was given the opportunity, he “did little, if anything, to nourish a positive bond” with Child. Id. at 25-26. See also id. at 26 (“Father was largely disinterested in … Child, routinely displayed anger and physical aggression toward Mother within … Child’s purview, and on occasion was cruel to … Child.”). Judge Reich also addresses Father’s

-7-

J-S27013-23

claims regarding the effect that the PFA order had on his relationship with Child. See id. at 26-27. The record confirms that Judge Reich’s decisions regarding both Sections 2511(a) and (b) are supported by ample, competent evidence. Therefore, we adopt his opinion as our own, and we affirm the decree granting the petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights for the reasons set forth therein.

Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/18/2023

-8-

02:57 PM Circulated 09/29/2023 02-57

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

IN RE:

A.H.B. A.H.B No. 0743 of 0£ 2022

INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION

OPINION OPINION SUR APPEAL APPEAL This opinion is written in response to an appeal from this

court's grant of a a Decree which involuntarily terminated the 4.M. Jo w parental rights of as birth father ((hereinafter, hereinafter,

"Father") Father") A.H.B. ((who of A.H.B. who is referred to hereinafter as the

"Child"). ChLl".

PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY OF TERMINATION OF TERMINATION OF OF PARENTAL PARENTAL RIGHTS RIGHTS CASE CASE The Child was born on August 3, 2013. Petitioners Petit10gs • 14..S. N.S. (hereinafter, (hereinafter, "Stepfather") Stepfather") and .3.8. 22e n/b/m L; (hereinafter, (hereinafter, "Mother") Mother") filed a a

Petition for Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights on March

22, 22, 2022, by by their counsel, James D. Wolman, Esquire. The

Respondent, Respondent, 63 ➔•t'• ((hei::einaftei::, hereinafter, ""Father") Father") was served by a

constable with the Petition for Adoption and Termination of Parental Rights on May 11, 2022. By Order dated June 23, 2022,

Robert S. S, Cronin, Jr., Esquire, was appointed legal interest

attorney for the Child. By Order dated September 2, 2022,

Patricia L. L Dunlevy Williams, Esquire, was appointed guardian ad

litem item for the Child at the request of Attorney Cronin. Cronin, By Order

dated September 21, 2022, H. Allison Wright, Esquire, was appointed as counsel to represent Father.

The court held hearings on the termination of parental rights petition on December 2, 2022, and on January 26, 2023. The Decree terminating Father's parental rights was docketed on

March 1, 2023. 2023 Father timely filed a a Notice of Appeal on March

24, 2023.

FINDINGS FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Child was born on August 3, 2012. 2012. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022

at page 5) 4.s. J•S• 2. 2 Child. ((N.T. is the mother of the Child. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 5)

3. Mother is self-employed creating paintings and jewelry

and selling them on the internet. internet. ((N.IT. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 62)

4. 2± is the father of the Child. Child. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 6) KS• N.S. . 5. Mother married on February 21, 2022.

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 5)

6. Stepfather is employed as a a cook. N.T. 12/2/2022 at cook. ((N.T.

page 63 63))

7. Stepfather has known Mother since April of 2021. 2021, ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 138)

8. Stepfather has supported the Child since he started

living with them shortly after June 30, 2021. 2021 ((N.. N.T. 12/2/2022 at

pages 141 - 142)

9, 9. The Child has her own bedroom at the apartment of

Stepfather. ((N Mother and Stepfather. N.T. T. 12/2/2022 at pages 143-144)

10. Stepfather and the the Child adore each other. other. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 121)

11. Mother was 15 years of age when the Child was born.

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 6)

12. Mother met Father when she was 14 l4 years of age and

Father was 18 years of age. ((N.T. age. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 8 8 and page

165)

13. Father impregnated Mother soon after she turned 15

years of age. age. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 8)

14. 1% In the fall of 2011, Mother took too aa pregnancy test and

informed Father that it was positive. positive. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 88

- - 9 9 and pages 50 50 -- 51)

15. Mother was not happy about having Father's child

because Father was abusive to her. her ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 9) 9

16. During the time they were were in a a relationship before the

Child was born, if Mother said something that displeased Father,

he would threaten Mother with violence. violence. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page

9) 9

-3 -3-

17. 17 During this same time period, Father threatened Mother

with a a knife because Father thought Mother was cheating on him. him

Father choked Mother in her sleep because Father didn't like

something Mother did while she was sleeping. Father shot a a BB

gun at the ceiling purposely and kind of ricocheted it and it hit gun

Mother multiple times. times Father was also mad that Mother didn't

want to talk to him alone after Motter Mother broke up with him and

Father took took a a glass mug full of cigarettes and ashes and threw it

in Mother's face. face. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 10)

18. 8. While Whie she was pregnant pregnant with the Child in late December

2011 or early early January 2012, Mother broke up with Father, moved in

with her mother and stepfather in York County, and told her friends that she had miscarried so that, in the event Father were to come and look for her, it would not be to see the child.

(N.T. (N T. 12/2/2022 at pages 10 and pages 167 167 -- 168) 168)

19. 19, The Child was was born at Hershey Medical Center on August

3, 2012. Father was not informed of the birth of the Child.

(N.T (N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 10 -- 11)

20. 20 Mother continued her schooling and received aa high

diploma. ((N.T. school diploma. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 11)

21. For the first seven years of the -he Child's life, Mother

and the Child lived with Maternal Grandmother and Step-

Grandfather in York, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 11 1l -

12)

-4-

22. 22 When the Child was seven and a a half years old, Mother

and the Child moved to Coatesville, Pennsylvania, where they

lived with with Mother's sister for aa little less than a a year. year. ((N. N.T. T.

12/2/2022 at page 12)

23. In August August of 2020, Mother's sister confronted Mother

about the Child's father and urged Mother to work on a a

relationship relationship with with him. him ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022 at page 12)

24. Mother reached reached out to Father via social media and

informed Father that he had a a daughter. Father met the Child for

the first time on September 11, 2020. 2020 ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 13

and pages 168 168 -- 169)

25. Father and Mother then decided they would live together

and raise the Child together. together ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 171)

26. Subsequently, Mother and the Child moved in with

Father, Father, who who was staying with friends. This arrangement lasted

from September September 2020 to July 1, N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 13 2021. (IN.T. 2021

and page

27. 171)

Father's friends were S. H . S.H. I and c.. C•1. Their home was located at 217-A 217- North Duke Street,

Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 13 -- 14)

28. After living with Father for two weeks, Father's vile behavior became constant, and included his losing his temper,

name calling, calling, insults, and verbal abuse directed at Mother and

-5- -S-

front of the Child. the Child causing Mother to cry in front Child. ((N.T N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 14)

29. 29, At this time, Mother worked at Brandywine Hospital in

Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and Father was a a line cook. cook. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at pages 14 14 -- 15) 15

30. Father stopped working and Mother had to quit her job 1ob

due to her being sick with staph meningitis. meningitis. ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at

pages 15 15 - 16)

31. While Mother, Father, and the Child were residing in their friends' home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Father performed

no parental duties dut es for the Child. Child. ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 86 -- 87) 87 32. During this time, Father punished the Child for no

reason at all. all. ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 89)

33. Mother's friend observed Father give the the Child

melatonin gummies which caused the Child to pass out. out. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 89)

34. The only activity Father engaged with the Child was

playing video games. games. ((N. N.T.. 12/2/2022 at page 90)

35. 35, Mother's friend observed that Father choked Mother to

the extent that he re left marks,on marks on Mother's neck. neck. ((N,T, N.T. 12/2/2022

at page 91)

36. Father and Mother continued to live with the friends

and the Child was enrolled in cyber school. At this time, the

-6-

underway. ((N.T. COVID-19 pandemic was underway. €OVID-19 N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 16 and

86)

37. 37, When Mother was employed, Mother's morning routine was

to wake the Child up, ap, get her food, get her dressed, and get her

set up up for cyber school. By contrast, Father would be laying

down, watching television, televusion, be on his phone, pnone, and playing video

games. ((N.T. games. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 17)

38. After Mother stopped working, she used her o savings to

provide for everything the family needed, incluaing paying rent, including

purchasing mattresses, on. ((N.T. and so on. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 17 17 --

18)

39. 39, Mother, Father, and the Child moved out of their

friends' home in January 2021 and went to live with Maternal Maternal

Grandmother and Step- Grandfather in York, Step-Grandfather Pennsylvania. Mother,

Father and the Child lived at the Maternal Grandparents' home for about five to six weeks. Mother's brother was also living with

Maternal Grandmother and Step- Grandfather at that Step-Grandfather time. (N.T. time. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 19 and at page 112)

40. During this time, Mother worked at the post office in

Lancaster. Father was working. ((N.T. not working. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 20)

41. The Child Crild continued with cyber school while living with

the Maternal Grandparents Grandparents. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 21)

42. While Mother was at work, wor, Maternal Grandparents Granaparents and

Mother's brother took care of the Child. Child. ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022 at page

21) 21

43. The Child was was very active, playful, and loved oved people.

Father found the Child's behavior to be annoying and he gave her

adult- strength CBD gummies adult-strength gumies to calm her down. down. ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022 at

page 22)

44. Father believes the Child has Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder. Disorder ((N.. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 34)

45. When Father was a a teenager, he lived for five years

with a a woman who had young children. Based upon the knowledge

that Father gleaned during this time, Father believes that he has

aa sufficient basis to parent a a young girl. girl. ((N N.T. T 1/26/2023 at

pages 35 35 - 36)

46. 46 Father looked into the use of adult-strength adult- strength CBD CB

gummies and decided it was appropriate to give g.ve them to the Child.

(N.T. (N T. 1/26/2023 at pages 35 35 -- 36)

47. 47, Mother did not approve of Father giving the Chi_d Child the

CBD gummies, but when she tried to discuss the issue with with Father,

he would start a a fight. fight. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 22)

48. Father pressured Mother to give the Child the CBD

gummies. ((N,T gummies. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 74)

49. Mother felt she was in a a hopeless situation where she

was unable to prevent Father from giving CBD gummies to the

Child. ((N.T. Child. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 61)

50. 50, Maternal Grandmother knew Father gave the Child CBD

gummies. gummies. Father claimed that the Child needed to calm down and

stop stop being rambunctious. Maternal Grandmother's assessment was

that the Child was simply being a a child displaying normal energy

levels. levels. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 109)

51. gummies caused the Child to be in a The CBD gummies zombie- like a zombie-like

state which would last 3 3 to 4 4 hours. hours. ((N,T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 23)

52. When the family lived with the Maternal Grandparents,

if the Child was hungry all she could have was cereal. cereal Father

would not wake up to tend to her needs. needs ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at page

104)

53. 53 Father performed no parental duties for the Child when

the family was living with the Maternal Grandparents. Grandparents. ((N.T N.T.

12/2/2022 at pages 105-106)

54. Mother performed all parental duties for the Child

except except while she was away at work. work. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 110)

55. Maternal Grandmother heard the Child exclaim that the child she

hates her life and that Father is mean to her. Immediately afterward, Father claimed the Child had thrown her laptop

computer. Computer However, the laptop computer had simply fallen on the tne

floor. floor. ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 110 - - 111)

-9-

56. Maternal Grandmother observed that Mother, Father, and

the Child never appeared to be a a happy family. family. ((N N.T. T 12/2/2022 12/2/2022

at page 112)

57. 57 Maternal Grandmother confronted Father about not

following the house rules, but he just ignored her. her. ( N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 114)

58. Mother, Father, and the Child had to leave leave the Maternal

Grandparents' home because restrictions in the Maternal Grandparents' housing development excluded persons with aa

criminal record from residing there and Father had such a a record.

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 25)

59. 59 Mother was able to find aa row house for them to move to

located at 430 South Queen Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania

Mother and Father moved to that location in February 2021. 202l. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at pages 25 - - 27) 27

60. The Child did not move with Mother and Father to the

row house because Mother believed it was was not safe for the Child

to be with Father. Mother told to_id Father that the row house was not

suitable for the Child because the Child Ch'Id has asthma and the place

smelled like cigarettes; in addition, there were roaches and mice

in the row house. house. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 26 - 27)

61. Despite these conditions, Father thought nothing was

wrong with the row house. house. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 27)

-10-

62. Mother and Father lived ived at the row house until June

2021. Mother missed the Child very very much. much Mother visited the

Child often and talked to her on the telephone every day. day. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 28)

63. 63, Father did not work work during this time time, Mother paid all

of their household expenses. expenses. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 28)

64. 64, Mother did not have enough income to give Maternal

Grandparents money for the support of the Child. Child ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022

at page 30)

65. 65, Father never asked Mother to drive him to York to see

the Child. Child. ((N.T N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 31)

66. Father never contributed money for the support of the

while the Child was living with the Maternal Grandparents. Child whie Grandparents

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 31)

67. On June 30, 2021, Mother and Father moved out of af the

row house. Mother did not like the neighborhood. neighborhood The

relationship between Mother and Father was strained. Father was

not happy they were moving. moving. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 31-32)

68. 68 Mother's family helped Mother and Father move to an

apartment apartmert on Michelle Drive in Lancaster, or Pennsylvania, where the

Child would be able to join them. them, Father did nothing to assist

with the move. wIth move. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 32 and page 116)

69. 69 During the first night they were in the new apartment,

Mother was happy to be living in a a much nicer ricer place than the row

-11-house. Father complained about Mother's family members still being there after they did all the moving in extremely hot

weather. weather. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 34 and page 116)

70. 70, Mother tried to comfort the Child because she was

nervous about being around Father. Father asked Mother for a a

cigarette lighter, which Mother gave to him. him, Father and Mother

started arguing and Mother tried to get Father to lower his

voice. voice Father then threw Mother into a a wall. wall. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at

page 35)

71. Mother called the police. police Father then threw Mother to

the ground qround and left. left. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 36)

72. Father inflicted bruises and cuts on Mother. Father

broke one of Mother's fingers. fingers. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 36)

73. Father was gone by the time the police arrived. arrived. ((N.T N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 36)

74. The Child witnessed witressea the altercation between Mother and

Father. Father. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 192)

75. Stepfather had to break up the altercation between

Mother and Father. Father. ((N.T. N.T 12/2/2022 at page 140) 140

76. At the time of the altercation, the Child sent a a text

message to Maternal Grandmother that said "please Please come back,

daddy hit mommy." ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 118)

77. Later that 77Later same night, the Child sent another text

message to Maternal r don't want to be Materna Grandmother that said " I

-12-

here. Please get me out of here. Daddy's bad." bad + ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022

at page 118) 118

78. 78 When the Maternal Grandparents arrived at the

apartment, Mother, Stepfather and the Child were were apparently

traumatized. gone. ((N.T. Father was gone. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 119)

79. The next morning, Father appeared at the apartment

screaming. screaming Mother refused to open the door. Father threw rocks

and aa lighter at her window. window. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 36 36 -- 37)

80. Mother called the police again but Father was gone by

the time they arrived. arrived. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 37) 37

81. Mother next obtained a a temporary protection from abuse

Order against Father. Father The order was vacated because Mother

failed to appear for the hearing. hearing. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 37 - at pages 37 -

38)

82. Mother filed aa second petition for protection from

abuse, abuse. After aa hearing held in Father's absence ((after after he had

been served with notice of the hearing) Mother obtained a a final

order on September 7, 2021. 2021 The final protection from abuse

order remains rema ns in effect and will expire on September 7, 2024. 2024

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 39 - - 40, Petitioner's Exhibit 2)

83. Father did not appear for either protection from abuse

hearing. Father claims that his " derealization disorder" "derealization

prevented him from appearing. appearing ((NT N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 32)

-13-

84. The Child is not a a protected party in the final

protection from abuse order.

85 85. Father has not appeared at Mother's residence since the

final protection from abuse order has been in effect, effect. ((N. N.T. T.

12/2/2022 at page 152)

86. Mother has had no contact with Father since June 30,

2021. 202.. Since that date, Father did not reach out in any manner to

ask to see the Child nor did he pay any child support for her. (N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 40)

87. 87, Stepfather and Mother filed their petition for adoption

and termination of parental rights on March 22, 2022. 2022. ({N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 43)

88. 88, Father has not seen the Child since on or about June

30, 2021. ((NT 2021. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 48; 48, 1/26/23 at page 8)

89. 89 Father claimed he had no way to contact Mother. Mother ((N. N.T. T

12/2/2022 at page 168)

90. 9. Father believes that that if he tried to see the Child, the the

police would be called due to the protection from abuse order in

effect against him. him. ((N.7 N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 196)

91. Father claims he tried to contact Maternal Grandmother on July 23, 2021, in attempt to see the Child but that he

received no response. response. ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 /26/2023 at pages 44 -- 5)

-14-

92. Father claims that he attempted to contact Stepfather

in July 2021, December 2021, and January 2022, with no success success.

(N.T. 1/26/2023 at pages 5 5 -- 6)

93. Father claims that he sent Stepfather aa message via

Facebook Messenger to inquire about who who was was representing representing Mother

in order to make arrangements to see the Child. Child. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022

at pages 147 14 - 150)

94. Stepfather stated that he could not receive aa message

via Facebook Messenger from Father because his account is set up

to block messages from any person who is not Stepfather's Stepfather' s

Facebook friend and Father was not Stepfather's Facebook friend. friend

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 150)

95. 95 Father contacted Mother's sister in an attempt to talk

to Mother's attorney. attorney. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 65 - 66) 65

96. Father signed an acknowledgment of paternity with with

regard regard to the Chid Child on two occasions occasions. On one occasion, Father

signed the acknowledgment form on October 2, 2021. 2021 Father mailed

the form with his signature ((but but without Mother's signature) to

the Pennsylvania Department of Human Euman Services. Services. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022

at pages 196 - - 199; Respondent's Exhibit 3)

97. 97 Father thought it was necessary for him to to complete the

acknowledgment of paternity form before he would be able to file f_le

a a child custody action in respect to the Child. Child. ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022

at page 198)

-15-

98. Father filed a a reverse paternity action through the

Lancaster County Domestic Relations Office, Office. At the the hearing

(which occurred during the summer of 2022), Mother acknowledged that Father is the biological father of the Child, but Father

wanted DNA testing. testing. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 43)

99. 99, The DNA test, the report of which was received in the

Domestic Relations Office on June 21, 2022, proved that Father is

the biological biological father of the Child. Child. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 201

- 202; 202, Respondent's Exhibit 4)

100. Father was aware in January 2021 202l of the court self help

center in the courthouse and that he had the ability to file a a

custody complaint against Mother without the assistance of an

attorney, but d d not do so. Father did so. ((N N.T. T. 12/2/2022 at page 199;

N.T. N.. 1/26/2023 at page 33 33)

101. 0_. Father has not held a a job ob since he last worked at a a

restaurant from July to November 2020. 2020. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page

161)

102. 102 Father quit working woring because he got sick. sick. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 161)

103. Father received pandemic- related unemployment pandemic-related

compensation in the amount of $$254 254 per week which later increased

to $ 354 $354 per week week during the years 2020 and 2021. 202l Some of the

money came in the form of a a lump sum payment of accrued

compensation. compensation, The lump sum was either $$14,000.00 14,000.00 0r or $ 16,000.00. $16,000.00.

-16 -16-

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 162 162 -- 163; N.T. N,T 1/26/2023 at pages 28 28 --

29)

104. Father saw no reason to seek a a job because he had

received the lump sum and was receiving ongoing unemployment

compensation which was sufficient to cover his h s needs. needs. ((N.T N.T.

1/26/2023 at pages 28 28 -- 29)

105. Father was living with Mother when he received the lump

sum payment. parent. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at pages 162 162 -- 163)

106. Father used the unemployment to support Mother and the

Child, including depositing $ 4,000.00 of the $ $4,000.00 14,000.00 $14,000.00 into the

bank account account which was jointly titled to Father and Mother Mother.

(N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 164)

107. Father believes that being a a father to the Child put

him in a a tough position because of his not being around the Ch.ld Child

for eight years. years. ((N N.T. T. 1/26/2023 at page 8)

108. Father has not had a a driver's license icense since 2017. 217

(N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 14)

109. 109, Father was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of

Alcohol in 2019. 2019. ((N.T N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 15; Petitioner's

Exhibit 5)

110. Father has a a conviction from 2019 for simple assault, assau.t,

strangulation, and recklessly endangering another person. person. ((N.T. N.T.

1/26/2023 at page 17; 17, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) 6y

-17-

111. Father was was on probation at the time when Father started

to live with with Mother. Mother. ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 18)

112. 112, Father was charged with with summary harassment for an

offense which occurred on June 22, 2022. 2022. ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at

pages 18 18 -- 19; Petitioner's Exhibit 7)

113. 113 Father suffered from derealization disorder which began

in January of 2021 but ceased in an July or August of 2021. 2021. ((N.T N.T.

1/26/2023 at pages 20 and 22)

114. Father testified alternatively about the trigger of the the

derealization disorder. Firstly, Father stated that the condition came about due to compound stress from finding out

about aa child he did not know «now he had, moving in with Mother, and

the stress of finding a a home for them and working. worsing. Later, Father

testified that the condition started when he was in prison in

2019 for about five months. months, ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at pages 22 and 24)

115. 115. Father was prescribed Xanax and BuSpar for anxiety

derealization. ((N.T. related to depersonalization and derealization. N.T. 1/26/2023

at page 25)

116. Wher living with the Maternal Grandparents, When Father

stayed in ir his room due to hostility from Mother's family and

admits that he did not parent the Child Child. ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page

28) 28 117. 117, Father ceased sending money to Mother after trey they

separated on July 1, l, 2021. ((N, 202, N.T.. 1/26/2023 at page 30)

-18-

118. 18. Father claims that that since separation from Mother he has

attempted to give the the Child gitts gifts and cards. cards There is no

corroboration for Father's assertions assertions. (N.T. 1/26/2023 at page (N.T.

38)

119. Since Father's separation from Mother, Father has not

inquired about the Child's progress in school. (N.T. (N.T. 1/26/2023

at pages 39 39 -- 40)

120. Father resides with his mother, Tina Mann (" Paternal t"Paternal

Grandmother"). Grandmother". ((N T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 160)

121 The last time Paternal Grandmother saw the Child was in

January January or February of 2021. 202l. (N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 47) (N.T.

122. 22. Paternal Grandmother had the Child occasionally for

sleep-overs, sleep-ovens, ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at pages 47 47 -- 48)

123. Paternal Grandmother indicated she bought Christmas and

birthday gifts for the Child. ((N,T. the Child. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 49)

124. 124 Paternal Grandmother Grardmother testified that on August 4, 2021,

she had a a stack of gifts for the Child and that she went to

Mother's Mothers residence with the gifts but was told she would be

arrested if she tried to see the Child. Child. ((N.T N.T. 1/26/2023 at page

51)

125. Mother stopped the Child's sleep-overs at Paternal Grandmother's home because of the presence of cocaine in the

home. ((N.T. home. N.T. 1/26/2023 at page 75)

-19-

126. The Child has a a belief that God is important to her and

Father has made fun of her for having such a a belief. belief. ((N.T N.T.

12/2/2022 at a. page 47)

127. Since Father last saw the Child at the end of June

2021, he has not sent any gifts or letters for the Child, inquired about her schooling or medical status, has not sent birthday cards, and has not attempted to file for child custody. (N.T. 12/2/2022 at page 67)

128. 128 The Child is afraid of Father. Father. ((N.T. N.T. 12/2/2022 at page

115)

129. The Child states that she hates Father. 129, Father. ((N.T. N.T.

12/2/2022 at page 121)

130. 130, The Child is glad that Father is not in her life since

the incident that triggered the protection from abuse action of

June 30, 2021 2021. ((N N.T. T 12/2/2022 at page 145)

131. The Child's legal interest irterest attorney contends on the

Child's behalf that Father's parental rights should be

terminated. terminated ((N.T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at pages 83 83 - 84)

132. 132 The Guardian Guarian ad litem supports the termination term.naton of

Father's parental rights and indicated there is no bond between

Father and Child. Child. ((N,T. N.T. 1/26/2023 at pages 84 -- 86) 84

CONCLUSIONS OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Petitioners Pet'tioners proved by clear and convincing evidence

that:

-20-

(a) Father, by conduct continuing a for more than a

period of six months preceding the filing of the petition, either

has evidenced a a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim

to the Child or has refused or failed to to perform parental parental duties.

[23 Pa.C.S.A. .23 Pa.C.S.A. §S 2511 ((8)(1] a)(1)]

2. The Petitioners proved by clear and convincing evidence

that termination of Father's parental rights will best serve the

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare welfare of the

Child because the Child Ch.ld is in need oft of aa nurturing, loving and aa

stable home bome environment, which Father has failed to provide, and

the severance of the bond between the Child and Father will have

little impact upon the Child. Child. [(23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511 ((b)] b)]

DISCUSSION

In termination of parental rights cases, the burden is upon apon

the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the

asserted grounds for seeking the termination oi of parental rights

are valid. In in re 5.., S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 806 ((Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 2005) 2005

The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so sa ""clear, clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact tact to come to a a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re J.L.C. J.L.C. &4 JR.C J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 ((Pa.Super, Pa.Super. 2003)

In matters involving involuntary termination of parental

rights, the appellate standard stardard of review is as follows:

The standard stanuard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts ""to to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the

-21-

trial court if If they are supported by the record." record. in re rn Adoption of S.P., [616 Pa. 309, 325, 47 A.3d 817, 826 S P., 1616 (2012)]. ""If (20121]. If the factual findings find.ngs are supported, appellate courts review to determine if if the trial tria. court made an error of law or abused its discretion," discretion." Id. Id "[A] [A] decision may bee reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill- ill will." will," Id. Id, The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support aa different result. Id. At [[325-26, 325-26, 47 A.3d 827. A 3d at] 827 We

R. ie have previously emphasized our deference to trial tr al courts that often have first-hand first -hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. See in re R.J.T., T., [608 A 3 1179, 1190 ((2010)1. 608 Pa. 9, 26-27, 99 A.3d 2010)]. In re T. S.M. , 620 Pa. 602, 628, 71 A.3d T.S.M., 5.3d 251, 267 (2013) (2013). " he The trial court is free to believe beleve all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make axe all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re re M.G. & 0.G., 855 A.2d 8 J.G., A 2d 68, 73-74 73-74 ((Pa Super. 204{citation Pa.Super. 2004)(citation omitted). "(I]f omitted). "[ I]f competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, find.ngs, wii. affirm even if the record could also support we will the opposite result." In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 ({Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 2003)(citation 203)(citation omitted). omitted}.

The termination of parental parenta_. rights is governed by Section

2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. C.S.A. §§ $$ 2101-2938, and

requires aa bifurcated analysis of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of the child.

case law Our Case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court must engage in a a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights. rights Initially, Initally, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. parent The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). 25114a). 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 Section 2511(b): 2511(b). determination of the needs and welfare under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the

-22-

nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on any such the child of permanently severing ary suat bond. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 ((Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 2007)(citations 2007(citations omitted).

A. Termination p.slant to Termination pursuant t0 23 Pa. C.S.A.S 2a. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) 25111a 4l

There are two approaches to a a finding of grounds for

termination of parental rights under this subsection of the statute. Both require the court to examine the period of at

least six months prior to the filing of the petition. petition If, during

that period of time, aa parent exhibits ((l) a settled purpose or 1) a

to intent to relinquisn aa parental relinquish claim OR ((2) a failure to perform 2) a

parental duties, the court may then conclude that grounds to

terminate exist. exist

In this case, the subject petition was filed on March 22,

2022. Six months prior to that date would be September 22, 2021 2021.

The evidence is undisputed that Father has not seen the Child nor

performed any parental duties since July 1, l, 2021. 202l.

Our appellate courts have instructed us to not mechanically apply the six-month period preceding the filing of the petition,

but to cons.der consider the entire history of the case. In following

this precept, it is evident that tnat Father has not performed any

parental duties as the Superior Court has defined them for well

beyond the six-months six- months time period.

As the Superior Court has explained: explained. " There ere is no simple or

easy definition of parental duties. duties Parental duty is best

-23-

understood in relation to the needs of a a child. A A child needs

love, protection, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical

and emotional, cannot be met by aa merely passive interest in the

development of a a child. Thus, this court has held that the

is parental obligation is a positive duty, a which requires

affirmative performance. performance, Because aa child needs more than aa

benefactor, parental duty requires that that a a parent exert himself to

take and maintain a a place of importance in the child's life." life. In

re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 ((Pa.Super, Pa.Super. 2004)

The he family ((consisting consisting of Mother, Father, and the Child) was

intact from approximately September 11, 2020, until July 1, 2021. If Father performed any parental duties during that time, his

performance was minimal in nature. nature He did not provide the Child

with love, comfort, protection, or support. support, Father's focus on

his needs was far more important to him than providing for the Child's physical and emotional needs. The Child was hungry while under Father's supervision. Father drugged the Child so that she

would settle down and not him, annoy him. Father exhibited aggression

toward the Child and belittled her, as demonstrated during the incident where the Child dropped the laptop computer. Father's focus on his own various disorders overrode any concerns he might have had regarding the welfare of the Child. Father failed to provide love and comfort to the Child while the family was

intact. ntact. In addition, the record establishes that Father tends to

-24-

be abusive toward the Chi.d Child as he was toward Mother. Father

never demonstrated any reasonable firmness in attempting to see

the Child after the family separated. separated, Father knew he could

pursue a a child custody action with minimal expense and effort.

In summary, grounds for the termination of Father's parental

rights under § $ 2511 2511 ((a)(1) a)(1) have been proven by clear and

convincing evidence.

B. Needs and welfare of the child child pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. § to23Pa.C.S.A. S

2511 ( b) 251 b The "he court must next determine whether terminating Father's

parental rights to the Child will best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the Child. See, 23

Pa. C.S.A. § 0.S.A. $ 2511 ((b). b). "Intangibles such as love, comfort,

security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the

needs and welfare of the child. child." In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284,

1287 1297 ((Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 2005) An examination of the parent- child bond is parent-child

required, where the court must assess the effect upon the child

of severing that bond. Expert testimony is not required. required See In In

re K.K.R.-S., K.K.R -S., 958 A.2d A 2a 529, 533 ((Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 2008)

There are unusual circumstances in the present case, in that

Father was not aware of the Child's existence for many years. years

However, Mother, at the urging of her sister, sought to re- re

establish a a relationship with Father and to make a a family with

him and the Child. During the time period that the family was

-25-

intact an +he opportunity to build positive relationships was and the

present, Father did little, if anything, to nourish a a positive

bond between the Child and him. Father was largely disinterested

in in the Child, routinely routinely displayed anger and physical aggression

toward Mother within w.thin the Child's purview, and on occasion was

cruel to the Child Child.

Father complains that the court erred in not considering

that Father was as unaware of the Child's existence until she was

eight years of age and he did not have genetic proof he was the biological father until several months after the petition for termination was filed.

The court cannot condone Mother's act of oft not informing

Father of the birth of the tre Child for aa period of seven years even

though there was aa significant history of abusive behavior by

Father. The compelling fact remains that when Father was was given

the chance to be a a parent to the Child, he failed. He Ee did not

behave as an interested, engaged parent; he did little, engage if

anything, to provide the Child with love, comfort, and security.

Father complains that the court erred in not considering the effect that the active protection from abuse order had on Father's attempts to see the Child. The protection from abuse

order was a a roadblock roadblocx that Father had to overcome in order to

have access to the Child but Father failed to demonstrate reasonable firmness, or for that matter, any firmness in

-26-

overcoming this roadblock. roadblock Father Father knew knew he he could could have have brought brought a a

child custody action but he did not take that minimal step step to

protect his relationship with the Child. Child,

The Child deserves aa nurturing, loving, and stable home home.

The Child presently enjoys a a home possessing possess.ng these

characteristics with Mother and Stepfather. The Child's needs

are met and her welfare is being promoted in her present present home.

Father's on-going on- going presence in the Child's life would only disturb

the peace the Child now enjoys.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised by Father in his Notice of Appeal lack merit and the Decree entered March 1, 2023, should be affirmed.

»moon, BY THE C

Dated: April 26, 2023 • u _, REICH, JUDGE • /REICH,

-a 4to¢ Deputy • 1_I

-2.