In Re: D.T.P., a Minor, Appeal of: A.T.E., In Re: D.T.P., a Minor, Appeal of: A.T.E. No. 64 WDA 2017

Mother filed a petition on Feb 22, 2016 to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to their son (born May 2009) so the child could be adopted by Mother’s husband (Stepfather).
Father had minimal contact with the child after birth: paid support pre‑incarceration, was incarcerated May 2010–Oct 2013, sent a few letters while incarcerated, and last had contact in July 2010.
After release, Father requested visits several times; Mother refused and said visits would require court orders. Father chose not to pursue court-ordered visitation, believing litigation was not in the child’s best interest.
Father provided Christmas gifts in December 2015 but no regular financial support or sustained efforts to reestablish parenting after release.
Trial court found Father did not perform parental duties or demonstrate a settled intent to parent; child has no bond with Father and a strong bond with Stepfather; termination was in child’s developmental, physical and emotional best interests.
Superior Court affirmed the December 9, 2016 decree terminating Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b), applying abuse‑of‑discretion review and finding the trial court’s factual findings supported by the record.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Father’s rights could be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) for failing to perform parental duties / showing a settled purpose to relinquish	Father argued incarceration and Mother’s obstruction (changing contact info, refusing visits) limited his ability; he attempted to contact via available means and should not be punished for incarceration	Mother argued Father made a conscious choice not to pursue court‑ordered visitation and otherwise failed to perform parental duties after release	Court held Father failed to perform parental duties and voluntarily accepted Mother’s refusal to allow visits without using judicial remedies; termination under (a)(1) affirmed
Whether termination would meet § 2511(b) best‑interests standard	Father implied termination would harm parent‑child relationship and reward Mother’s misconduct	Mother/Stepfather argued child has no bond with Father, a strong bond with Stepfather, and termination would serve child’s needs	Court (and Superior Court) held no detrimental emotional impact from severing Father’s rights; termination met § 2511(b) considerations

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard that incarceration neither compels nor precludes termination and parent must use available resources to maintain relationship)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner is clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect of termination under § 2511(b))
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court must consider whole case history, not mechanically apply six‑month period)
In re: Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975) (parental responsibilities during incarceration; use of resources while imprisoned)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (incarceration does not automatically prevent termination)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate courts may affirm on any subsection of § 2511(a))
Adoption of S.H., 383 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1978) (authority relied on by Father addressing parental efforts and circumstances)
Lookabill v. Moreland, 485 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Super. 1984) (case addressing parental rights and contact efforts)