Adoption of: D.K.I., a minor, Appeal of: K.A.I., Adoption of: D.K.I., a minor, Appeal of: K.A.I. No. 205 WDA 2017

Background

Child D.K.I. born January 2011 to Mother (K.A.I.) and Father (J.D.); parents never cohabited. Father had limited contact early on and paternity was later confirmed by DNA in connection with child support.
From 2013–2015 Father had weekend custody by informal agreement; in April 2015 Mother asked Father to keep temporary custody while she recovered from her father’s suicide and then had no physical contact with the child after that date.
Father sought and obtained sole physical custody in 2015 after mediation and a court-ordered drug screen which Mother did not complete; Mother did not pursue custody further and did not see the child after summer 2015.
Father filed an involuntary termination petition under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) on May 11, 2016, alleging Mother had failed to perform parental duties/evinced a settled purpose to relinquish for the six months prior to filing.
At an evidentiary hearing Father and his wife (prospective adoptive mother) testified; Mother testified and presented family witnesses but could not show sustained contact or steps to overcome barriers during the relevant six-month period.
The orphans’ court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to perform parental duties in the statutory period, and that termination was in the child’s best interests under § 2511(b); this appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Father proved grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1)	Father: Mother failed to perform parental duties or evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish for the six months before petition; she had no contact, visits, cards, calls, or acknowledgments	Mother: She attempted contact but Father obstructed her (ignored calls, blocked contact, etc.); her failures were due to addiction, homelessness, lack of transportation, intimidation at mediation, and lack of counsel	Held: Affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence Mother failed to perform parental duties in the statutory period; excuses unsupported by record and many remedial efforts began only after filing period ended
Whether the court erred in failing to consider Mother’s attempts to contact the child during the six-month period	Father: Record shows minimal/unsupported attempts; Mother yielded to obstruction and took no meaningful steps	Mother: Made calls, texts, asked relatives to contact child, sought legal aid and treatment—barriers prevented further action	Held: Court properly considered efforts; Mother’s asserted attempts lacked corroboration and she did not reasonably overcome obstacles
Whether the court ignored Father’s interference in the relationship	Father: Denies improper interference beyond lawful custody steps; mediation order and drug test were proper	Mother: Father blocked and ignored contact, and made threats that deterred her	Held: Court found Father’s alleged obstructions not dispositive; Mother did not take affirmative, documented steps to maintain relationship
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests under § 2511(b), including impact on sibling bonds	Father: Child has stable daily care with stepmother and paternal half‑siblings; severing ties with Mother would not harm child and adoption would preserve stability	Mother: Termination would sever relationship with maternal half‑brother and harm child	Held: Affirmed. Court found maternal bond had diminished, child’s primary bonds were with father, stepmother, and paternal half‑siblings; termination served child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs

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 T.R., 465 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1983) (petitioner must prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
Matter of Sylvester, 555 A.2d 1202 (Pa. 1989) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§ 2511(a)(1) analysis and consideration of entire case history)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court must consider totality of the circumstances, not mechanically apply six‑month period)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental duty includes affirmative duty to maintain communication and use available resources)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (three-part inquiry after finding failure to perform duties: explanation, post‑abandonment contact, § 2511(b) effect)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§ 2511(b) focus on developmental, physical, emotional needs and bond analysis)
Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (importance of continuity, love, comfort, security in best‑interest analysis)