In the Int. of: A.L.C.K. Appeal of: L.K., 1463 MDA 2016

Background

Child A.L.C.K., born 2004, lived with Father and Stepmother since 2006; Mother moved to New York in 2012 and had a history of inconsistent, supervised visits and mental-health related issues in the background custody case.
Child diagnosed with PTSD related to periods in Mother's care; therapy began in 2010 and trauma-focused treatment continued; visitation with Mother last occurred April 7, 2015, after which Mother requested a break and there was no further contact.
Petitioners (Father and Stepmother) filed for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) and (b) on February 2, 2016; Mother was served March 31, 2016; hearings occurred May 5 and June 20, 2016.
Court found Mother failed to perform parental duties for the six months prior to the petition, did not pursue reunification therapy or use available avenues (custody order, maternal grandparents, legal action) to maintain contact, and voluntarily prioritized her life in NYC over consistent parenting.
Guardian ad litem and Child supported termination; Child (age 12 at hearing) testified credibly that she wished to be adopted by Stepmother.
Orphans’ Court entered decree terminating Mother’s rights under §2511(a)(1) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Petitioners’ Argument	Held
Whether Mother used reasonable efforts/firmness to maintain relationship	Mother says she attempted contact (emails, texts via older daughter, therapist contacts) and sought reunification therapy	Mother was inconsistent historically, ceased efforts by Aug 2015, and did not pursue scheduled reunification or legal remedies	Court: Mother failed to use reasonable efforts; termination upheld under §2511(a)(1)
Whether Petitioners imposed insurmountable barriers (outdated custody order, therapist change, cyber school)	Mother argues Petitioners provided outdated custody order to providers, changed therapist, enrolled Child in cyber school, which impeded access	Even if barriers existed, Mother had duty to show they were insurmountable and to exercise reasonable firmness; she did not request custody order or take legal steps	Court: Mother failed to show insurmountable obstacles; she could have remedied issues and did not; ruling for Petitioners
Whether maternal grandmother served as communication channel and Mother used it	Mother contends Petitioners required counselor-mediated contact, so grandmother was not a reliable conduit	Petitioners/Record show ongoing relationship between Child and maternal grandparents; Mother knew but did not use grandparents to reengage	Court: Grandmother was an available resource Mother did not use; finding stands
Credibility of Child’s testimony and coaching claim	Mother claims Child’s use of legal terminology showed coaching, undermining credibility	Petitioners point to Child’s demeanor, maturity, and consistent reports in therapy supporting her statements	Court: Child’s testimony found credible, persuasive, uncoached; court relied on it in best-interest analysis
Whether a formal bonding assessment was required	Mother requests bonding evaluation given Child’s age and history	Petitioners and therapist argue bonding evaluation could harm Child and would add little given attenuated bond with Mother and strong bond with Stepmother	Court: No obligation to order bonding assessment; court declined because evaluation might harm Child and offered little benefit; termination affirmed under §2511(b)

Key Cases Cited

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and guidance on §2511(b) bonding analysis)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate review and factfinder credibility deference in TPR cases)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duties require affirmative effort and reasonable firmness to maintain relationship)
In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of parental duty and burden to show contact is steady, consistent, and contributes to child's psychological health)
In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard in TPR proceedings)