In Re: J.F.K., Appeal of E.F., father, 1153 WDA 2016

Background

Jefferson County CYS filed petitions on April 11, 2016 to involuntarily terminate E.F.’s parental rights to three children (J.F.K., B.R.K., K.J.K.).
Termination hearing held June 8, 2016; mother voluntarily relinquished rights; Father testified and CYS presented bonding assessment by Dr. Allen Ryen and caseworker testimony.
Dr. Ryen found only a weak bond between Father and the children and noted negative behavioral reactions by the children after visits.
CYS caseworker testified Father had very limited contact: nine visits with two children between April 2014 and April 2016 (fewer with the third child), lacked stable housing, and had only recently obtained part‑time employment while living in a shelter.
Orphans’ Court concluded Father had not remedied long‑standing parental incapacity, that continued contact had harmed the children’s behavior, and that termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b) was warranted; court denied Father’s motion for reconsideration after two foster families later withdrew as prospective adoptive parents.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	CYS/Orphans’ Court Argument	Held
Whether termination under §2511(a)(1) was error	Father moved from Louisiana to PA, attended available visits, and intended to reestablish parent‑child relationship	Father’s minimal and sporadic contact over years, recent moves without housing/employment, and failure to protect/advocate for children show refusal/failure to perform parental duties	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of failure to perform duties/settled purpose or conduct justifying termination
Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was error	Father can remedy incapacity and has recently sought employment/housing	Longstanding incapacity and instability caused children to lack essential parental care; causes unlikely to be remedied within a reasonable time	Affirmed: repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care that cannot/will not be remedied
Whether termination was contrary to children’s best interests under §2511(b)	Father argued children could form bonds given time; termination premature	Children displayed behavioral deterioration after reintroduction to Father; bonds with foster families are stronger; permanency requires severing weak parental ties	Affirmed: termination serves developmental, physical, and emotional welfare of children
Whether denial of reconsideration after foster families withdrew was error	Father argued changed circumstances (withdrawal) warranted reconsideration	Orphans’ Court: withdrawal did not alter findings about Father’s inability to provide stability or the weak bond; permanency with Father remained unlikely	Affirmed (issue arguably waived on appeal): denial appropriate given Father’s ongoing instability and children’s needs

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (procedural guidance on termination appeals)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Section 2511(b) bonding analysis and scope of evidence)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two‑step analysis: statutory grounds under §2511(a) then best interests under §2511(b))
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (factors and inquiries for §2511(a)(1) analysis)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider whole case history and totality of circumstances for six‑month statutory provision)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (§2511(a)(2) may be based on incapacity as well as refusal)
In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1975) (foundational test for §2511(a)(2): repeated incapacity causing lack of essential care and inability/unwillingness to remedy)
In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency’s failure to provide reunification efforts does not preclude termination under §2511)