Adoption of: B.G.S., Appeal of: S.S., 245 A.3d 700

Mother became pregnant after relationship with Father ended in April 2018; she did not notify Father and arranged adoption through Transitions Adoption Agency. Child was placed with prospective adoptive parents in February 2019.
Father and Mother reestablished contact in March 2019; Father first became aware Child existed in April 2019 and that he might be the father by May 2019 (the court credited this timeline).
Father made some attempts to seek advice from family and counsel and spoke with the Agency director in August 2019; he did not obtain court-appointed counsel until January 2020.
Agency filed an involuntary termination petition as to Father on September 9, 2019 (Child ~8 months old). The orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (6), and (b) on January 22, 2020.
On appeal the Superior Court held: (1) reversal required as to § 2511(a)(1) because the six-month lookback begins March 9, 2019 and Father did not know (and had no reason to know) of the child until April/May 2019; (2) reversal required as to § 2511(a)(6) because that subsection applies only to a “newborn child” (≤6 months old at the time of the petition) and Child was ~8 months old when the petition against Father was filed; the decree was reversed in full.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2511(a)(1) termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence that Father failed or refused to perform parental duties for at least six months before the petition	Father had reason to know of the child by March/April 2019 and then failed to perform parental duties through filing in September 2019	Father did not know and had no reason to know of the child (or his paternity) until April/May 2019, so he had less than six months before the petition	Reversed: court abused discretion — § 2511(a)(1) not met because Father lacked notice for the required 6-month period prior to the petition
Whether § 2511(a)(6) applied to permit termination because Father failed for four months to maintain contact/support where the child is a "newborn"	Child qualifies as a "newborn child" because the statute defines newborn by reference to any petition filed under Chapter 25 within first 6 months; earlier petitions filed as to others render child a newborn for later petitions	§ 2511(a)(6) applies only if the child was ≤6 months old at the time of the petition against this parent; Child was ~8 months when petition against Father was filed	Reversed: § 2511(a)(6) inapplicable — statutory reading requires child be ≤6 months at time of the petition at issue; holding otherwise yields absurd results

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel withdrawal when appeal appears frivolous)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania application of Anders procedure)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference in parental termination appeals)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis focusing on parental conduct first)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (§ 2511(a)(1) requires conduct sustained for at least six months before petition)
In re Adoption of C.M.W., 603 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1992) (courts must evaluate parental performance in light of the parent’s circumstances)
In re Adoption of B.D.S., 431 A.2d 203 (Pa. 1981) (contextual assessment of parental duties)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative efforts and consideration of obstacles; parent not required to perform the impossible)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate court need only agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b) to affirm)
In the Interest of L.E.A.-M., 156 A.3d 310 (Pa. Super. 2017) (statutory construction rejects interpretations that produce absurd results)