In the Interest of: H.A.Y., a Minor
In the Interest of: H.A.Y., a Minor No. 572 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Father and Mother are the biological parents of infant twins; Mother consented to adoption and the children were temporarily with prospective adoptive parents in Utah before being returned to PA and placed in foster care.
- Haven Adoptions filed petitions (Nov 17, 2016) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights and to confirm Mother’s consents; Mother’s rights were terminated and she did not appeal.
- Trial court continued hearing on Father’s termination petitions to allow him counsel; an evidentiary hearing occurred Jan 25, 2017 on petitions under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (6), and (b).
- Evidence conflicted: Mother and adoptive parents testified Father had minimal contact (about five or fewer visits), provided little financial support, and posed safety concerns; Father testified to frequent weekend visits, providing diapers/clothing/money, and seeking custody.
- Trial court found Father’s testimony not credible, concluded Father failed to perform parental duties during the six months prior to filing (July 17–Nov 17, 2016), and granted termination under § 2511(a)(1); appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haven/Adoptive Parents) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(1) (failure/refusal to perform parental duties over 6 months) | Father evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishment and failed to perform duties (minimal contact/support); termination is warranted | Father argued he regularly visited, provided monetary and material support, and sought custody; termination was improper | Court held evidence supported trial court credibility findings; termination under § 2511(a)(1) affirmed |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(6) (child likely to be placed permanently with adoptive parents) | Alleged parental unfitness and lack of bond justify termination | Father disputed lack of bond and parental commitment | Not reached on appeal; court affirmed on § 2511(a)(1) alone |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-part inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post-abandonment contact, effect per § 2511(b))
- In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must consider whole history, not mechanically apply six-month rule)
- In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner: clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of § 2511(a))
- Krebs v. United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural waiver for issues not raised in concise statement and questions presented)