In Re Adoption of M.R.B.
25 A.3d 1247
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- BCS, a licensed child placement agency, petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to M.R.B. under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(6) and (b).
- M.R.B. was conceived during an exclusive relationship between Father and Mother; they separated, and Mother obtained a final protection from abuse order against Father.
- Mother’s relationship with Father and prior PFA incident occurred before birth; Father pled guilty to harassment in January 2010.
- M.R.B. was born April 20, 2010; after birth, Mother considered adoption, with BCS contacting Father to discuss options.
- Mother initially placed the case on hold for custody discussions; four months after birth, Mother reopened the file and BCS placed M.R.B. with the prospective adoptive family.
- BCS filed the petition September 16, 2010; orphans’ court denied termination, and BCS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2511(a)(6) was proven, without requiring “purpose and intent.” | BCS—Father failed to contact or support within four months. | Father—did not prove lack of notice or actions; impedes termination. | Yes; elements met; reversal on grounds of error but remand for § 2511(b) analysis. |
| Whether the four-month window and newborn-definitional timing were misapplied. | BCS timely filed within newborn window and four-month review. | Trial court misapplied timing and required ‘purpose and intent.’ | Remanded for needs-and-welfare analysis under § 2511(b); reversal of denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa.Super.2003) (reasonable firmness; obstacles do not excuse parental inaction)
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa.Super.2005) (standard of review in termination cases; clear and convincing evidence burden)
- In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa.Super.2003) (clear and convincing evidence; credibility; appellate deference)
- Fletcher v. Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, 985 A.2d 678 (2009) (statutory interpretation; treatment of provisions across sections)
- In re T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa.Super.2003) (context for needs and welfare and termination standards)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa.Super.2008) (not requiring paternity testing as a prerequisite in all § 2511(a)(6) cases)
- T.J.B. v. E.C., 652 A.2d 936 (Pa.Super.1995) (discusses four-month window applicability; distinguishable from instant case)