Adoption of: B.G.S., Appeal of: S.S., 2021 Pa. Super. 9

Background

Mother became pregnant after her relationship with Father (S.S.) ended and did not notify him; she placed the child for adoption through Transitions Adoption Agency in February 2019. Mother consented to adoption and her parental rights were separately terminated and not appealed.
Child was placed with prospective adoptive parents in February 2019 and remained with them. Father and Mother reestablished contact in March–April 2019; Father learned of the child in April 2019 and that he might be the father by May 2019.
The Agency filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on September 9, 2019. The orphans’ court held hearings and terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (6), and (b) on January 22, 2020.
Father appealed. After an Anders remand for counsel to file an advocate’s brief, the Superior Court reviewed the merits.
The Superior Court reversed: (1) termination under § 2511(a)(1) was improper because Father lacked the requisite six months after he knew (or should have known) of the child’s existence; and (2) § 2511(a)(6) was inapplicable because the child was older than six months when the petition at issue was filed.

Issues

Issue	S.S.'s Argument	Appellees' Argument	Held
Whether § 2511(a)(1)’s six-month sustained failure to perform parental duties was proven	S.S.: He did not know, and had no reason to know, of the child until April/May 2019, so there was not a six-month period of failure before the Sept. 9, 2019 petition	Appellees: Father should have known earlier (by March 2019) and thus had six months to act	Court: Reversed termination under (a)(1); Father did not have the requisite six months after knowledge to be held to the statute’s standard
Whether § 2511(a)(6) (newborn four‑month/contact/support rule) applied	S.S.: He did not know of the child at birth and disputes that (a)(6) applies	Appellees: Child is a “newborn” because the Agency filed other Chapter 25 petitions while child was ≤6 months, so (a)(6) applies	Court: Reversed termination under (a)(6); statutory definition of “newborn” refers to the petition at issue, and child was ~8 months old when the Sept. 9, 2019 petition was filed
Whether Father’s lack of resources could justify termination	S.S.: Lack of resources limited his ability to act; court must consider circumstances and cannot terminate solely for environmental factors beyond control	Appellees: Father could have done more to assert parental rights despite limited resources	Court: Not decisive here; Superior Court emphasized that Section 2511(b) forbids termination solely for environmental factors beyond parent’s control and that the orphans’ court erred to the extent it relied on lack of resources as a sole basis
Whether the orphans’ court’s § 2511(b) best‑interests analysis must be reviewed	S.S.: Because (a) grounds failed, (b) need not be reached	Appellees: Even if (a) defective, (b) supported termination	Court: Did not reach § 2511(b) because reversal of (a) grounds was dispositive

Key Cases Cited

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis; focus on parental conduct first)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) (need to agree with any one (a) subsection plus (b) to affirm)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (§ 2511(a)(1) requires six months of conduct evidencing abandonment or failure to perform parental duties)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative efforts, but courts must consider obstacles and reasonableness)
In re Adoption of C.M.W., 603 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1992) (parental performance evaluated in light of the parent’s circumstances)
In the Interest of L.E.A.-M., 156 A.3d 310 (Pa. Super. 2017) (statutory construction should avoid absurd results)
Commonwealth v. Sloan, 907 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2006) (principle against statutory constructions that produce absurd results)