In Re: B.I.S., Appeal of: T.S. ( 2019 )

J-S68013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF B.I.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: T.S., BIRTH FATHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 652 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Decree Entered March 29, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): No. A-18-106
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2019
T.S. (Father) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County (orphans’ court) granting D.Z.’s (Mother) petition
seeking the involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights to the minor
child, B.I.S. (Child) (born August 2012), so that S.Z. (Stepfather) can adopt
Child. We affirm.
Father and Mother were never married but they lived together for
approximately one-and-one-half years after Child was born. Father struggles
with alcohol addiction and mental health issues and his relationship with
Mother was abusive. Mother evicted him from the residence in April 2014.
Mother and Father shared custody of Child by informal agreement until Mother
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68013-19
initiated an action, which resulted in a January 2016 consent order that
provided for shared legal custody and primary physical custody to Mother.
Father exercised visitation pursuant to that order until May 2017 when he
attempted suicide. Father’s last visit with Child was in October 2017.
Meanwhile, Father was convicted of three criminal offenses including
two driving under the influence cases as well as one case of sexual assault.
He was incarcerated from March 2018 through the end of August 2018 and
then entered an inpatient alcohol treatment program.
Mother and Stepfather married in June 2018. On November 13, 2018,
Mother filed a petition for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights
to Child and Stepfather filed a petition for adoption. The orphans’ court
appointed counsel for Father and a guardian ad litem for Child. The court held
a hearing on the petitions on February 5, 2019, and an in camera interview
with Child the next day.
On March 29, 2019, the orphans’ court entered its order terminating
Father’s parental rights pursuant to The Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a)(1), (2), (11), and (b).1 It determined that Father failed to maintain
____________________________________________
1 These provisions state:
(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:
-2-
J-S68013-19
____________________________________________
(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.
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect
or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without
essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his
physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be
remedied by the parent.
***
(11) The parent is required to register as a sexual offender
under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 97 Subch. H (relating to registration of
sexual offenders) or I (relating to continued registration of sexual
offenders) or to register with a sexual offender registry in another
jurisdiction or foreign country.
(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), (2), (11), and (b).
With regard to section (a)(11), we note that Father is required to register as
a sex offender because of his entry of a guilty plea to sexual assault charges
involving his then ten-year-old niece. (See Trial Court Opinion, 8/08/19, at
8, 16; Father’s Brief, at 9, 14-15).
-3-
J-S68013-19
contact with Child for more than a year, and that his explanations for his
inaction were unpersuasive. It also found that it was in the best interest of
the Child that Father’s parental rights be terminated. Finally, it found that
termination of parental rights was appropriate because Father was required
to register as a sex offender. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(11). It further
directed that Child’s adoption may continue without further notice to Father.
Father timely appealed and he and the orphans’ court complied with Rule
1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)-(ii).
On appeal, Father challenges the orphans’ court’s termination of his
parental rights. He claims that the statutory grounds for termination were not
met, and challenges the orphan’s court’s finding that termination will best
serve Child’s needs and welfare.2
I.
In cases involving the termination of parental rights, “[w]e give great
deference to the trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the
parties spanning multiple hearings.” In re Adoption of K.M.G., 2019 WL
4392506, at *6 (Pa. Super. filed Sept. 13, 2019) (en banc) (citation omitted).
“The trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility
____________________________________________
2 “[O]ur standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the
trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court
gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of
the child.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation
omitted).
-4-
J-S68013-19
of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] finder of
fact.” In re B.C., 36 A.3d 601, 605 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
“Where the hearing court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of
record, we must affirm the hearing court even though the record could support
an opposite result.” In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191–92 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(citation omitted). “In a proceeding to involuntarily terminate parental rights,
the burden of proof is upon the party seeking termination to establish by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.” Id. (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, as previously mentioned, the orphans’ court found that
Mother met her burden of proof under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), (2), (11),
and (b). It is well-settled that “we need only agree with its decision as to any
one subsection of Section 2511(a) and subsection (b) in order to affirm the
termination of parental rights.” In re Adoption of K.M.G., supra at *6
(citation omitted).3 We will, therefore, focus our discussion on the court’s
conclusion that termination is appropriate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and
(b). We begin by noting with regard to section (a)(1) that the orphans’ court
____________________________________________
3 Regarding the court’s finding of statutory grounds to involuntarily terminate
Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S § 2511(a)(11), he argues that he was
never informed of the potential loss of his parental rights by virtue of his guilty
plea. This is a collateral attack on his sentence. In any event, we need not
address this issue because of the manner in which we dispose of this appeal.
-5-
J-S68013-19
based its decision to terminate Father’s parental rights on its finding that he
has failed to perform his parental duties. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 14).
In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1),
the moving party must establish “that for a period of at least six months prior
to the filing of the petition, the parent’s conduct demonstrates a settled
purpose to relinquish parental rights or that the parent has refused or failed
to perform parental duties.” In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272
(Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). “Although the six months immediately
preceding the filing of the petition are the most critical to the analysis, the
trial court must consider the whole history of a given case and not
mechanically apply the six-month statutory provision.” In re B.N.M., 856
A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Additionally, “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).
“A parent is required to exert a sincere and genuine effort to maintain a
parent-child relationship; the parent must use all available resources to
preserve the parental relationship and must exercise reasonable firmness in
resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child
relationship.” In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
omitted). Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties,
the trial court must then consider: “(1) the parent’s explanation for his or her
-6-
J-S68013-19
conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between parent and child; and
(3) consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child
pursuant to Section 2511(b).” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super.
2008) (citation omitted).
We also note that a parent’s responsibilities are not tolled during his
incarceration. See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 828 (Pa. 2012).
Rather, we must inquire whether the parent has used those resources at his
disposal while in prison in continuing a close relationship with the child. See
id. “Where the parent does not exercise reasonable firmness in declining to
yield to obstacles, his other rights may be forfeited.” Id. (citation omitted).
II.
A.
In this case, Father argues that he did not refuse or fail to perform
parental duties, claiming that he was continuously involved in Child’s life until
their final visit in October 2017. Father maintains that, despite the obstacles
he faced, including his incarceration and Mother’s thwarting of his attempts to
exercise custodial rights, he made efforts to perform parental duties. He avers
that he took parenting classes while incarcerated, obtained treatment for his
addiction and mental health issues, paid child support to the extent that he
was able to, and sent text messages to Mother to inquire about Child. (See
Father’s brief at 17-21).
-7-
J-S68013-19
As previously noted, our review of the record reflects that Father has
not had a visit with Child since October 2017. (See N.T. Hearing, 2/05/19, at
26, 65, 122). Since that time, Father did not send letters seeking a visit nor
did he inquire as to Child’s health, performance in school or general well-
being. (See id. at 26-27).4 Father was incarcerated from March 2018 through
the end of August 2018, and he then spent three weeks in an inpatient alcohol
rehabilitation facility in December of that year. (See id. at 104-05, 109-10).
At the time of the hearing, Father was unemployed and had no home of his
own; he lived at a vocational rehabilitation facility. (See id. at 61, 110, 135).
The testimony showed that Father’s financial support of Child was sporadic at
best, and although his efforts to address his addiction and mental health
issues was a positive start, more rehabilitation is needed. (See id. at 28-29,
43, 108-114).
After weighing the testimony, the orphans’ court determined that Father
failed to maintain contact with Child for more than a year before Mother filed
her petition to terminate his parental rights, and that Father’s explanations
for his inaction were unpersuasive. We discern no abuse of discretion in its
____________________________________________
4 The court specifically credited Mother’s testimony that Father did not request
to visit with Child and that he did not send letters or serve her with documents
requesting any visitation; the court found Father’s testimony to the contrary
not credible. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 14, n. 14).
-8-
J-S68013-19
decision to terminate Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to Section
2511(a)(1).
B.
We next address Father’s challenge to the orphans’ court’s subsection
2511(b) analysis. If the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are
met, a court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical
and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). The
needs and welfare of the child include intangibles such as love, comfort,
security and stability. See In re Adoption of K.M.G., supra at *8. A
determination regarding the child’s needs and welfare requires consideration
of the emotional bonds between the parent and child. See In re E.M., 620
A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). “The utmost attention should be paid to discerning
the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond.” In re
D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322, 328 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).
With regard to subsection (b), Father argues that the orphans’ court
discounted the bond Child has with him, paternal grandmother and Child’s
half-brother,5 and that termination will deprive Child of loving relationships
with family members. (See Father’s Brief, at 5, 15, 25-26).
Again, the record supports the orphans’ court’s determination. While
the court recognized that Father loves Child, it noted that Father has an older
____________________________________________
5 Father has an older son by a different mother, who was 16 years old at the
time of the hearing.
-9-
J-S68013-19
son, and that he failed to stabilize his life for that son. (See N.T. Hearing,
3/29/19, at 8-9). It further determined that termination would provide
consistency for Child and “give [him] the best shot in life where he is not
derailed or harmed or has psychological pressure of what is going to happen,
the uncertainty or the stress of what [Father] is going to do. . . . He ought to
be able to move forward with some sense of permanence, some sense of
direction.” (Id. at 9). Child has a significant bond with Stepfather, whom he
refers to as “Dad.” (N.T. in camera Interview of B.I.S., 2/06/19, at 5, 7, 18,
21).
After review of the record, we agree with the orphans’ court’s conclusion
that Child will not suffer a detriment as a result of the termination of Father’s
parental rights. The parental bond between Child and Stepfather is strong
and loving and his needs and welfare can best be met by terminating the
parental rights of Father.
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/23/2019
- 10 -