In Re: Adoption of T.B.H. Appeal of: B.A.H. father
638 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Nov 8, 2016Background
- Mother filed petitions on November 18, 2015 seeking involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights to sons M.M.H. (b. 2004) and T.B.H. (b. 2005) under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1)-(2) and (b).
- Hearing occurred March 31, 2016; Mother, Stepfather, and Father testified. Orphans’ court made findings on the record and entered orders terminating Father’s rights on March 31, 2016 (entered April 1, 2016).
- Father last saw the children in 2006 during a jail visit and has had essentially no contact since; he has been incarcerated for much of the intervening period and is serving a sentence likely extending through at least July 2025.
- Father made only minimal, sporadic attempts to locate/contact the children (limited social media use, one phone call, a one-time domestic-relations request, and an incidental store encounter in 2013); he provided no financial support, custody petitions, gifts, or correspondence.
- Stepfather has lived with and acted as a father figure to the children since about 2011, with the children calling him “dad” and Stepfather expressing a desire to adopt if Father’s rights were terminated.
- Orphans’ court found no parent–child bond between Father and the children, concluded Father showed a settled purpose of relinquishment and that terminating his rights served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Father’s parental rights meets the best-interests test under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Mother: Termination serves children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; no bond with Father; Stepfather is established paternal figure and suitable adoptive parent | Father: No bonding assessment was performed; no admissible testimony established that termination would negatively affect the children or regarding existence of a bond | Court affirmed. Clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(b); no bond shown, court may infer absence of bond without formal evaluation and termination favors children’s needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis of § 2511: parental conduct under (a) then child’s needs under (b))
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (best-interests inquiry considers intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability and requires analysis of parent–child bond)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where there is no evidence of a bond, it is reasonable to infer no bond exists)
- In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court is not required to order a formal bonding evaluation)