In Re: A.R.L., Jr. Appeal of: A.T.G., Father
In Re: A.R.L., Jr. Appeal of: A.T.G., Father No. 355 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Child A.R.L., Jr. (born 2014) was placed in foster care in April 2015; dependency was entered and the child remained in placement for roughly two years.
- Father (A.T.G.) was not initially identified as the biological father; the Agency mailed an order for out-of-state genetic testing in August/October 2015.
- Father missed multiple scheduled paternity/DNA appointments over 2015–2016 (offering explanations like forgetting dates and work), and did not complete testing until August 2016—over a year after he was first notified.
- Mother’s parental rights were terminated in January 2017; the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights in October 2016 (petition filed after child had been in placement longer than the 15-month statutory threshold).
- The Orphans’ Court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (a)(2) based on his failure/refusal to timely participate in paternity testing and his lack of minimal efforts to assume parental duties.
- The Superior Court affirmed the (a) subsection holdings but remanded because the Orphans’ Court did not place a Section 2511(b) best-interests analysis on the record and ordered that be completed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties or settled purpose to relinquish) | Agency: Father’s prolonged failure to complete DNA testing and take steps to parent for at least six months before the petition shows refusal/failure to perform duties | Father: Paternity was only established shortly before the petition; he lacked time to demonstrate willingness or ability to parent | Court: (a)(1) satisfied — Father missed multiple tests over >1 year; child had been in care ~18 months and delay harmed child’s permanency |
| Whether termination was warranted under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/incapacity causing child to lack essential parental care and not remediable) | Agency: Father’s repeated failures to appear for testing caused prolonged lack of parental care; causes were his and not remedial in time | Father: Argued lack of evidence of incapacity/unwillingness because paternity was only recently confirmed | Court: (a)(2) satisfied — Father’s efforts were minimal, caused delay, and child’s needs required permanency |
| Whether the court performed required best-interests analysis under § 2511(b) | Agency: (implicit) termination appropriate given child’s bonding to resource parents and prolonged placement | Father: Did not challenge § 2511(b) on appeal but record lacked a § 2511(b) finding | Superior Court: Remanded — Orphans’ Court failed to place a § 2511(b) best-interests analysis on the record; remand for full § 2511(b) consideration allowed |
| Scope of appellate review and standard of proof | Agency: Termination must be affirmed if supported by competent evidence and proper consideration of child’s welfare | Father: Insufficient evidence to show refusal/incapacity; procedural timing undermines findings | Superior Court: Affirmed (a) holdings as supported by competent evidence; remanded only for missing (b) analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standards for appellate review in TPR cases and factors for best-interests analysis)
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and remand for fuller best-interests inquiry when record deficient)
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider totality of circumstances and not mechanically apply six-month rule)
- In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (articulating elements for § 2511(a)(2): repeated/incapacity, resulting lack of care, and unremediable causes)
- In re G.P.R., 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative efforts, especially when child is in foster care)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (parental obligations are positive duties tied to child’s needs)