In Re: A.K.W. Appeal of: M.W., Jr.

J-S52028-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: A.K.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: M.W., JR.
No. 657 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree March 22, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 2012 of 2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 24, 2017
M.W. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, involuntarily terminating his parental
rights to A.K.W. (DOB: August 2009), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 of the
Adoption Act.1 After careful consideration, we affirm based on the well-
reasoned trial court opinions of the Honorable Jay J. Hoberg.
J.D. (“Mother”) and Father had a toxic relationship, which consisted of
many verbal and physical disputes. Depending on the circumstances of
Mother and Father’s relationship, Mother and A.K.W. went back and forth
between living with A.K.W.’s maternal grandparents and paternal
grandparents from August 2009 until May 2010, when Mother went to basic
training for the U.S. National Guard. Father lived with A.K.W.’s paternal
____________________________________________
1
23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101 et seq.
J-S52028-17
grandparents, and he would perform parental duties when A.K.W. was at the
paternal grandparents’ home.
While Mother was at basic training, A.K.W. was in the care of the
maternal grandparents, who permitted the paternal grandparents to have
custody of A.K.W. on alternate weekends. Father was charged with burglary
and incarcerated on September 8, 2010. In October 2010, Mother returned
home and resumed raising A.K.W. Mother and A.K.W. lived primarily with
the maternal grandparents, but Mother shared some periods of A.K.W.’s
caretaking with paternal grandparents and maternal uncle. This custody
arrangement was in place for more than a year while Father remained
incarcerated.
Mother began a relationship with another man in January 2012.
Mother, her paramour, and A.K.W. lived together for a year. Mother allowed
paternal grandparents to have periodic custody of A.K.W during that time.
Mother’s relationship with her paramour ended in 2013, and she went back
to living with maternal grandparents, but continued to allow paternal
grandparents to have periodic custody of A.K.W.
Thereafter, Mother began dating T.D., and she moved in with him in
October 2013. Father was living with paternal grandparents at this time and
had contact with A.K.W. when Mother brought her to paternal grandparents’
home, until January 2014 when Father began a relationship with another
woman. Mother disapproved of Father’s paramour because A.K.W. began
imitating inappropriate behavior she claimed to have seen Father’s paramour
-2-
J-S52028-17
do. As a result, Mother communicated that she would not allow A.K.W. to be
with Father when he was with his paramour. Accordingly, Father did not see
A.K.W. from January 2014 until March 2014, although he claims this was
because Mother ignored his messages.
One night in March 2014, Father and his friend went to Mother’s house
and demanded custody of A.K.W. Mother refused, an argument followed,
and Father’s friend put Mother in a chokehold. Father left the residence with
A.K.W., and Mother reported the incident to the police. The police
determined that A.K.W. was at the paternal grandparents’ home, and
returned A.K.W. to Mother’s custody. Thereafter, Father was served with a
temporary protection from abuse (“PFA”) order, which became final after a
hearing on June 11, 2014. The PFA addressed custody by allowing Father to
have partial physical custody and visitation rights as the parties agreed or
until further order of the Court after a family business court presentation,
custody conference, or a hearing regarding custody of the minor child. PFA
Order, 6/11/14, at 3.
After the incident in March 2014, Father had no contact with Mother or
A.K.W. until April 2015. Mother continued to coordinate visits with A.K.W.
and her paternal grandparents, meeting them in public places because she
did not want them to know where she and A.K.W. lived. On April 28, 2015,
Mother called paternal grandparents to let A.K.W. wish paternal grandfather
a happy birthday. While on speakerphone, Father spoke briefly to A.K.W.
Accordingly, Mother ended the phone call and reported a PFA violation.
-3-
J-S52028-17
Mother ceased all contact with paternal grandparents, and approximately
one week later, paternal grandfather made a Facebook post promising a
reward in exchange for information regarding Mother’s location. Father
shared this post on his personal Facebook account, which was reported to
the police as a second PFA violation, and the PFA was extended for three
years.
Mother and A.K.W have not had any contact with Father or the
paternal grandparents since the second PFA violation. On September 12,
2015, Mother married T.D. On September 21, 2016, Mother and T.D. filed a
petition for adoption and involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights. 2
Father was provided notice of the termination hearing on December 2, 2016.
Father notified the court of his intention to contest the adoption proceeding,
and the court appointed him counsel, as well as a guardian ad litem for
A.K.W. A hearing took place on February 27, 2017, and the court ultimately
terminated Father’s parental rights to A.K.W. in a decree entered on March
22, 2017.
On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review:
Did the court err in finding that Father faced no barriers to the
exercise of his parent-child relationship or that if such barriers
existed, that he did not confront them with reasonable firmness?
____________________________________________
2
Mother and T.D. amended their petition for adoption and involuntary
termination of Father’s parental rights on October 7, 2016; however, the
amendment did not make any substantive changes to the original petition.
-4-
J-S52028-17
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
When reviewing a trial court’s order terminating parental rights, our
scope of review is broad and comprehensive, however, our standard of
review is narrow. In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2005).
“We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the
result reached.” In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131 (Pa. Super.
2007) (internal citations omitted). We accept the findings of fact and
credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the
record. In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). If the record
supports the factual findings, we must affirm the trial court’s decision, even
though the record could support an opposite result, unless we find the trial
court made an error of law or abused its discretion. In re Adoption of
K.J., 936 A.2d at 1131.
After thorough review of Father’s arguments, the record, and
controlling case law, we rely upon the well-reasoned opinions of the
Honorable Jay J. Hoberg in disposing of Father’s claims. See Trial Court
Opinion, 3/22/17; see also Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/17. Mother did not
create insurmountable barriers to the relationship between Father and
A.K.W. Trial Court Opinion, 3/22/17, at 7. Moreover, many barriers to
Father’s relationship with A.K.W. were of his own creation. Although the
obstacles Father faced were not inconsequential, he did not confront those
barriers with reasonable firmness for the reasons set forth in Judge Hoberg’s
opinions. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly found that the
-5-
J-S52028-17
evidence was sufficient to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights
pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act.
Accordingly, we affirm the decree involuntarily terminating Father’s
parental rights to A.K.W., and direct the parties to attach a copy of Judge
Hoberg’s opinions in the event of further proceedings. See Memorandum
Opinion and Decree, 3/22/17; Opinion Sur Appeal, 5/11/17.
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/24/2017
-6-