In Re: Adopt. of A.H.B., Appeal of: J.M. ( 2023 )

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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