Adoption of: K.O.K, minor Appeal of: I.K.S.
Adoption of: K.O.K, minor Appeal of: I.K.S. No. 1451 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Child born in 2011; Mother (I.K.S.) and Stepfather (C.G.S.) petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father (J.J.K.)’s parental rights in April 2016.
- Prior to September 2014 Father had an active, flexible parenting relationship and a normal father–son bond; Child lived with Mother.
- After September 2014 Father’s contact with the Child became sporadic; Father testified he repeatedly attempted visits, left gifts, called legal aid, and had phone/contact difficulties; Mother testified Father stopped seeing the Child after September 27, 2014 and sometimes missed arranged visits.
- Guardian Ad Litem reported both parents’ homes were suitable; no CPS involvement, no allegations of abuse, and Father had stable employment, license, no criminal or substance-abuse history.
- Trial court found Father credible, concluded Appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father had for six months prior to the petition refused or failed to perform parental duties, and denied the termination petition.
- Appellants appealed, raising multiple challenges to the trial court’s findings, legal standards applied, weight of the evidence, bond finding, and alleged reliance on hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court findings are supported by the record | Appellants: findings unsupported; court misapplied law | Father/Trial Ct.: credibility findings supported by testimony and evidence | Court: affirmed trial court; factual findings supported by record and credibility determinations entitled to deference |
| Whether Father failed for 6+ months to perform parental duties under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) | Appellants: Father was absent ≥6 months and thus met statutory ground | Father: made repeated attempts to contact/visit; credible explanation for gaps | Court: Appellants failed to prove six-month statutory requirement by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard and weighed best interests under § 2511(b) | Appellants: court used improper “attempt-to-contact” standard and erred on welfare analysis | Father/Trial Ct.: applied bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis, found bond and no detriment to Child | Court: trial court applied proper law; even if § 2511(a) proven, § 2511(b) would not favor termination |
| Alleged reliance on hearsay/incompetent evidence | Appellants: court relied on hearsay (e.g., legal aid contact, Father’s depression) | Father/Trial Ct.: testimony admissible to explain conduct; credibility matters | Court: objections insufficiently developed on appeal; trial court permissibly considered testimony as non-hearsay to explain conduct; issue waived/fails |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial-court credibility in termination cases)
- In the Interest of S.A.D., 555 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1989) (Juvenile Act’s focus on preserving family unity and minimum standard of care)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (termination decisions require compassion and are not to be taken lightly)
- In re Matsock, 611 A.2d 737 (Pa. Super. 1992) (parental duties viewed in relation to child’s needs)
- In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. 1990) (parental bond is unique; termination warranted when bond exists in form but not substance)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis; petitioner bears clear-and-convincing burden)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory grounds)
- In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197 (Pa. Super. 2014) (definition of clear and convincing standard)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court must examine totality of circumstances when applying the six‑month provision)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs and welfare analysis includes love, comfort, security, and effect of severing bond)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 549 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 1988) (out‑of‑court statements offered to explain conduct are not hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Carroll, 513 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Super. 1986) (similar rule on out‑of‑court statements explaining course of conduct)
- In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203 (Pa. Super. 2012) (issues unsupported by authority may be waived on appeal)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate arguments must be developed with authority)
- Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (same)