In Re: Adoption of: C.J.A., Appeal of: B.A., 204 A.3d 496

Background

Child born March 2012; Mother and Father had a brief relationship in 2011; paternity confirmed and Father paid child support.
Father had partial informal custody early on, then contact diminished after family moves and Father became temporarily homeless; Father visited intermittently until Mother moved to Monroe County in Oct 2014 and cut off contact.
Father later attempted to locate Child (private investigator tools, police/criminal dockets, counsel, hired constable, filed custody action, served by publication) and obtained interim custody proceedings in Luzerne County; Petitioners filed an involuntary termination petition Dec 28, 2017 in Monroe County.
Orphans’ court held hearings (Mar 1 and Apr 25, 2018), found Father credible, found Mother obstructed contact, and denied Petitioners’ petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1).
Court also concluded Fiancé could not yet adopt Child because he was not married to Mother; appeal followed and child’s counsel representation was reviewed and deemed adequate.

Issues

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether Fiancé (not yet married to Mother) could adopt Child	Fiancé argues he effectively functioned as parent and intended to marry Mother, so he should be eligible to adopt	Father and court note Adoption Act/requirements and that marital status bars adoption now	Court: Fiancé not eligible to adopt absent marriage; issue not dispositive because termination petition failed
Whether Father's conduct for the six months before filing showed abandonment under §2511(a)(1)	Petitioners argue multi-year lack of contact shows abandonment; belated efforts in six months insufficient to overcome prior abandonment	Father argues he made substantial, good-faith efforts in the six months before filing (investigations, counsel, attempted service, custody filings) and Mother blocked contact	Court: Held Father’s actions during the six-month window were substantial; Petitioners failed to prove clear and convincing grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a)(1)
Whether court over‑weighted Mother’s obstruction and ignored Child’s best interests	Petitioners contend court improperly credited Mother’s obstruction excuse and downplayed Father’s overall abandonment and best‑interest concerns	Father and court relied on credibility findings that Mother impeded contact and that severing rights was not justified; child’s counsel reported child unaware of Father	Court: Court reasonably credited evidence that Mother impeded contact; primary focus was statutory six‑month period and Father’s recent efforts, so denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 184 A.3d 585 (Pa. Super. 2018) (child’s right to counsel in contested involuntary termination)
In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (distinction between child’s legal interests and best interests)
In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2018) (when one attorney may represent both legal interests and best interests)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under §2511)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for proof under §2511(a)(1))
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (consideration of parent’s explanation for abandonment)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative efforts)
In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parental obligations and active efforts)
In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (courts consider whole history but focus on six-month statutory window)
In the Interest of D.F., 165 A.3d 960 (Pa. Super. 2017) (deference to orphan court credibility findings)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts may not reweigh credibility determinations)