In Re: A.R., minor child, Appeal of: L.T., In Re: A.R., minor child, Appeal of: L.T. No. 180 WDA 2017

Child A.R. born Oct. 6, 2014; placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent shortly after birth; mother later voluntarily relinquished rights.
Father (L.T.) lived with mother in New Mexico during pregnancy; lost contact after incarceration beginning Oct. 5, 2015; learned child was in foster care in Feb. 2016.
Father made limited contacts with CYS/caseworker (a few calls), sent no mail, gifts, pictures, or financial support to the child, and never contacted the foster parents or child.
Father was briefly released in June 2016 but re-arrested; expected maximum release date was May 17, 2017; he retained counsel and participated by phone at the termination hearing.
CYS petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b); evidence at the Dec. 22, 2016 hearing (caseworker, CASA, foster mother) showed no bond between Father and child and a strong parent–child bond with pre‑adoptive foster parents.
The Orphans’ Court terminated Father’s rights; the Superior Court affirmed on appeal, finding clear and convincing evidence of failure to perform parental duties and that termination served the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s rights could be terminated under §2511(a)(1) for failing to perform parental duties / evidencing a settled purpose to relinquish	CYS: Father made virtually no efforts (no mail, gifts, contact with foster parents or relatives, no legal steps) during the statutory period and while incarcerated failed to use available resources to maintain relationship — satisfies §2511(a)(1)	Father: Incarceration limited his ability to provide support and contact; he attempted to contact the agency and lacked notice and means to maintain the relationship	Held: Affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence that Father failed to perform parental duties and evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishment; incarceration did not excuse failure to utilize available means to maintain contact.
Whether terminating Father’s rights met child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond / welfare analysis)	CYS: No parent–child bond exists; child is bonded with pre‑adoptive foster parents who are ready to adopt — termination will not harm child and serves her developmental, emotional, physical needs	Father: (abandoned on appeal) Implicit argument that severing rights would harm child's interests	Held: Affirmed. Court found no meaningful bond between Father and child and a strong bond with foster parents; termination would not be detrimental and supports child’s welfare.

In re M.M., 106 A.3d 114 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (scope of appellate review in termination cases)
In re T.M.T., 64 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2013) (burden of proof in termination proceedings)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s credibility determinations in termination cases)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirmance standard when record could support opposite result)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parental duty includes affirmative duty to maintain communication; inquiry re: resources available while incarcerated)
In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (§2511(a)(1) satisfied by either settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties)
In re of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court must consider full case history, not mechanically the six‑month statutory window)
Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (required three‑part inquiry after finding abandonment or failure: explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect of termination under §2511(b))
Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bifurcated analysis under §2511(a) then §2511(b))
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussion of needs and welfare analysis and bond assessment)