In Re: D.W.G., III, Appeal of: D.W.G., Jr., father, In Re: D.W.G., III, Appeal of: D.W.G., Jr., father No. 77 WDA 2017

Background

Mother (S.D.S.) and her husband filed petitions on March 16, 2016 to involuntarily terminate Father’s (D.W.G., Jr.) parental rights to two children born 2005 and 2007; trial court held an evidentiary hearing Aug. 10, 2016 and entered an order terminating Father’s rights on Dec. 14, 2016. Appeal consolidated in Superior Court.
Major factual dispute: Father had intermittent contact with children through ~2012, then limited/ceased contact while incarcerated (2009–2011; Dec. 2013–Dec. 2015); he claims inability to contact children while incarcerated and alleges Mother impeded contact after she moved to Pennsylvania.
Father testified he attempted contact through family members and filed for modification only after receiving termination petition; Mother testified Father had not sent letters, gifts, or offered support since ~2012 and that visitation ended because of his inappropriate/under-the-influence behavior.
Guardian ad litem recommended termination; trial court found petitioners’ testimony credible, found Father failed to exercise "reasonable firmness" to preserve the parent–child relationship, and found a strong bond between children and prospective adoptive father but no bond with Father.
Trial court terminated parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b); Superior Court affirmed, applying abuse-of-discretion review and clear-and-convincing evidence standard.

Issues

Issue	Mother's (Petitioners') Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s conduct for ≥6 months before petition evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties (§2511(a)(1))	Father had minimal meaningful contact since 2012 and did not use available resources to preserve relationship; thus statutory ground met by clear and convincing evidence	Incarceration limited his ability to perform duties; he attempted to use available resources (family intermediaries, later filed for modification) and Mother obstructed contact (moved without notice, withheld address)	Court found Father failed to exercise reasonable firmness, did not overcome obstacles, and §2511(a)(1) satisfied; termination allowed on that ground
Whether Father used all available resources to preserve parent–child relationship	Petitioners: Father did not send mail or otherwise maintain contact during incarceration and after release until petition — he failed to use available means	Father: attempted contact via relatives, lacked current contact info while incarcerated, and only could act fully after release; Mother impeded efforts	Court credited petitioners' evidence and found Father's efforts insufficient; he could have sought court relief or used other means; not excused
Whether Mother obstructed Father’s contact such that termination should be denied	Petitioners denied creating real obstacles; custody records showed mother notified court of moves and contact points	Father argued Mother actively thwarted contact and used incarceration to prevent relationship, so her misconduct should excuse his lack of contact	Court found no credible evidence Mother deliberately impeded contact; even assuming obstacles existed, Father failed to demonstrate reasonable firmness to overcome them
Whether termination would harm children because of an existing bond with Father (§2511(b))	Petitioners: children have strong bond with prospective adoptive father; no evidence of beneficial bond with Father; severing would be in children’s best interests	Father: claimed bond and attachment; argued GAL and mother lacked sufficient evidence of detrimental effect if bond severed	Court found no evidence of a bond that would make severing detrimental; primary consideration was children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs — termination met §2511(b)

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration neither compels nor precludes termination; parent must use available resources and exercise reasonable firmness)
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (court must consider parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, and effect of termination under §2511(b))
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must examine whole history and individual circumstances; do not mechanically apply six‑month rule)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability; bond analysis under §2511(b))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluation not always required; social workers/caseworkers can provide bond evidence)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defines clear and convincing standard for termination proceedings)