In the Interest of: A.T., a Minor Appeal of: J.T.
638 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- Mother (D.S.) filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father (J.T.)’s parental rights to two sons, A.T. (born 2011) and E.T. (born 2013); orphans’ court granted the petitions and Father appealed.
- Father and Mother separated in Nov. 2013; a two-year PFA issued against Father (expired Jan. 2016) but expressly allowed contact to arrange custody or discuss the children.
- A March 2014 custody agreement gave Father four hours of supervised partial custody on Sundays; Father exercised custody only four times and last saw the children at Easter 2014.
- After Easter 2014 Father relocated (Florida, Massachusetts) and communicated sporadically by phone, email, and social media; Mother blocked numbers and limited contact, and Father did not retain counsel or pursue legal remedies.
- Mother remarried in May 2015; her husband is the proposed adoptive father and the children call him “daddy.”
- The orphans’ court found Father failed to perform parental duties for the statutory period and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not considering evidence that Mother prevented Father from maintaining a relationship with the children (re: §2511(a)(1)) | Mother argued Father failed to perform parental duties for the six months before filing and used insufficient efforts to maintain the relationship. | Father argued Mother erected barriers (blocking numbers, withholding address per PFA) that made meaningful contact impossible, and the court should have credited this explanation. | Court held competent evidence showed Father failed to use all available resources or "reasonable firmness" to overcome obstacles; §2511(a)(1) grounds were met. |
| Whether termination was contrary to the children’s best interests because therapy and regular contact could restore bonds (re: §2511(b)) | Mother argued termination was in the children’s best interests given absence of bond with Father and established bond with stepfather, who is to adopt. | Father argued he loves the children and with regular contact and family therapy could form parental bonds; termination was premature. | Court held terminating Father’s rights served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs given lack of parent-child bond and established bond with adoptive father; §2511(b) satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.W.U., Jr., 33 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2011) (scope of appellate review of termination orders)
- In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate limitation to competent evidence)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standards for review)
- In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (trial court as factfinder; credibility determinations)
- In re T.R., 465 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1983) (clear and convincing standard for termination)
- Matter of Sylvester, 555 A.2d 1202 (Pa. 1989) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two-part test under §2511(a) then (b))
- In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (§2511(a)(1) requirements)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (consideration of parent’s explanation)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parent must use all available resources and exercise reasonable firmness to preserve relationship)