In Re: S.S.W., Appeal of: S.W. & M.J.W., 125 A.3d 413

Mother and Stepfather petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to two children; petition filed July 31, 2014 and denied by the orphans’ court on October 6, 2014; appeal followed.
Children have been in Mother’s sole custody since January 4, 2013; Father had no contact with Mother or the children after late December 2012/early January 2013.
A PFA was entered (January 10, 2013) after an incident in which Father threatened self-harm and allegedly assaulted Mother; Father later committed indirect criminal contempt for attempted contact and received a suspended sentence.
Father underwent psychiatric and pastoral counseling, completed two months of counseling in 2013, obtained job training and steady employment, and consistently paid $400/month in child support.
Father missed a PFA extension hearing (court found he did so because he could not get time off work and could not afford counsel); he attempted to obtain Legal Aid representation but was declined due to pending criminal charges.
Orphans’ court declined to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), crediting Father’s explanations (mental-health crisis, lack of counsel, arrests for contact attempts) and finding no clear-and-convincing proof of a settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform parental duties; court did not reach § 2511(b).

Issue	Mother/Stepfather's Argument	Father/Orphans’ Court's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s lack of contact and failure to pursue custody for six months prior to petition shows a settled purpose to relinquish or refusal to perform parental duties under § 2511(a)(1)	Father abandoned parental duties and failed to exercise reasonable firmness—missed hearings, did not obtain counsel, didn’t pursue custody	Father’s nonparticipation resulted from an acute mental-health/crisis period, PFA restrictions, arrests for attempts at contact, inability to afford counsel or get Legal Aid—court credited this and his subsequent rehabilitation	Affirmed: orphans’ court did not err; record does not show clear and convincing evidence for termination under § 2511(a)(1)
Whether the orphans’ court should have considered the six-month statutory period mechanically or under totality of circumstances	Six-month absence is dispositive of abandonment/failure to perform duties	Court must examine entire history and explanations; here totality shows legitimate obstacles and later remedial steps	Affirmed: court properly considered totality and explanations rather than mechanical six-month rule
Whether failure to analyze § 2511(b) was reversible error	Termination should be evaluated for children’s best interests under § 2511(b) as well	Because court denied relief under § 2511(a)(1), it need not reach § 2511(b)	Affirmed: no occasion to analyze § 2511(b) after (a)(1) denial

In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (six‑month period is critical but court must consider whole history and totality of circumstances)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parent must utilize available resources and exercise reasonable firmness to preserve parent‑child relationship)
In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parental duty is an affirmative obligation beyond financial support; requires continuing interest and effort)
In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (parental obligation defined in relation to child’s needs; affirmative performance required)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review defers to orphans’ court factual findings and credibility determinations)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (parents must use available resources to continue relationship with child)