In re: Adopt. of: B.K.R., a Minor
Appellant, T.D.R. (“Father”), appeals from the decree entered on March 16, 2026, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Orphans’ Court, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his child, B.K.R. (born September 2011) (“Child”). After careful review, we affirm.
Background
The orphans’ court summarized the procedural background of Father’s case as follows:
On October 7, 2025, natural mother [B.N.M.], (“Mother”), filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights [(“IVT Petition”)] seeking to terminate the parental rights of natural father, … Father …, to their minor son, [Child].1 The [IVT
P]etition was filed under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2504 , alleging that Father had conducted himself in ways that justified termination of his parental rights pursuant to23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and(a)(2) . Specifically[,] Mother averred that Father had[,] for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the [IVT P]etition[,] … evidence[d] a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental rights or had refused to perform parental duties…[. Mother also claimed] he had exhibited a repeated incapacity, neglect[,] or refusal [to] parent[, which] cause[d] … [C]hild to be without essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well[-]being, and that Father cannot remedy the conditions he created.Mother has [since ]married. Her husband, [D.J.M.], stepfather to [Child], (“Stepfather”), is the proposed adoptive father of … [C]hild.
Father is incarcerated at a correctional facility in Tennessee.
Following the filing of [the IVT P]etiton, the [orphans’] court issued an order scheduling the matter for a hearing on November 19, 2025….
On October 10, 2025, the Wayne County, Tennessee[,] Sheriff filed … proof of service confirming Father’s receipt of [the IVT P]etition and the [orphans’] court’s order scheduling the matter for a hearing. Father filed a pleading objecting to Mother’s requested relief. In response to Father’s pleading[,] the [orphans’] court issued an order on November 6, 2025, appointing counsel for Father[,] and approv[ing] the virtual appearance of Father at the hearing.
***
The [orphans’] court appointed … Lauren Sulcove[, Esquire,] to serve as [GAL] for [Child] and continued the hearing until January 27, 2026, in response to Father’s request [for a continuance] to allow his court[-]appointed attorney to be properly prepared for the hearing. Father’s counsel submitted a request to allow
paternal grandmother to appear remotely for the hearing, as she lived in Tennessee, to which Mother objected. The [orphans’] court denied Father’s motion to permit the witness to testify remotely. The parties appeared at the hearing on January 27, 2026, as scheduled. The [orphans’] court conducted a colloquy of the court[-]appointed [GAL] to determine if [A]ttorney Sulcove could also serve as attorney for … [C]hild. After the colloquy[,] the [orphans’] court concluded that [A]ttorney Sulcove could serve as both attorney and [GAL] for [Child], finding … [C]hild’s legal interests and best interests aligned.2
Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 4/27/26, at 1-3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Testimony
During the January 27, 2026 hearing on the IVT Petition, the orphans’ court heard testimony from Mother, Stepfather, Father, and Child. We
Mother
Mother and Father dated for about 7 years but were never married, although they did live together when Child was less than 3 years old. N.T. at 14-15. When their relationship ended in about 2014, Father moved to Tennessee, while Mother and Child remained in Pennsylvania. Id. at 15-16.3 Mother testified Father has not had regular custodial periods with Child since 2014, and any visits he did have were day visits. Id. at 17-18.4 Father’s last physical visit with Child was in July of 2022 at paternal grandparents’ house in Tennessee. Id. at 18-19. He was rearrested that evening. Id. at 19-20. Mother explained she still maintains a close relationship with paternal grandparents and Child spends two weeks at their house each summer. Id. at 19.
Mother stated Father is not involved in Child’s education, does not inquire about attending parent-teacher conferences or other school events, and is not involved in Child’s extracurricular activities including soccer and
Mother indicated that she and Stepfather have been together for 11 years and married for approximately 7 years. Id. at 12, 22. Child has resided with Mother and Stepfather since he was about 3½ years old. Id. at 14-15, 22-23. Child has two younger half-siblings. Id. at 15. Mother testified that Stepfather fills the role of Child’s dad. Id. at 23. Stepfather is involved in Child’s education as he attends parent-teacher conferences, keeps up with Child’s grades, and checks in on Child’s laptop to follow his classes. Id. Stepfather attends all of Child’s soccer games and coaches Child’s baseball team. Id. He provides daily guidance to Child, giving advice and talking about life. Id. at 23-24. Mother expressed that Child and Stepfather have a loving relationship and Stepfather does not treat Child any differently than his two biological children. Id. at 24. Mother believes Stepfather’s adopting Child is in Child’s best interest because it is the healthiest relationship for Child. Id.
On cross-examination by Father’s counsel, Mother declared that Father did not send letters to Child every month, or even every other month. Id. at 28-29. When asked whether Father had spent an entire week with Child in 2018 in Tennessee, Mother responded that she was unaware of that occurring, but any time spent with Child was at paternal grandparents and was supervised. Id. at 29. Mother testified Father last called her in June or July 2025. Id. at 30. Mother testified she only had phone records for 2025, as those are the only statements available to her. Id. at 30-31. Mother indicated she would answer Father’s calls, but she would not continue any calls that required her to pay. Id. at 31. Mother explained that she never blocked the prison phone number; however, there was a period between 2024 and 2025 when a call filter added by Verizon attempted to block the calls as spam. Id.
Mother agreed that in August 2023, she informed Father if he wanted information about Child, he could ask paternal grandmother. Id. at 32. Mother discussed how prior to Father’s current period in prison, there was a conversation between the parties which established that if Father was reincarcerated, Mother would not allow Child to contact him, because he had promised Child he would not go back to prison. Id. Mother acknowledged
Mother explained paternal grandmother was instructed not to send any pictures of Child to Father while he was in prison based on concerns for Child’s safety due to Father’s actions while incarcerated. Id. at 36. Specifically, Father had informed Mother he had joined a gang called the Aryan Nation while incarcerated, and Mother was aware of a prison incident in which Father had been stabbed 50 times. Id. at 54-55. Mother denied she threatened to block Child’s relationship with paternal grandparents or that it was her intention to cut off paternal grandparents’ access to Child if the IVT Petition was granted. Id. at 37.
On cross-examination by Child’s GAL/legal counsel, Mother stated she is aware of the crimes for which Father is incarcerated; however, she has not told Child anything about why Father is in prison. Id. at 58. Nevertheless, Father’s rearrest and latest period of incarceration caused Child to act out in school, as he was overwhelmed and frustrated regarding promises Father had made to him and then broken. Id. at 59. Child has previously seen a therapist
Stepfather
Stepfather testified he has not had any contact with Father within the last three years, and Father has never attempted to reach out to Stepfather directly. Id. at 70-71. Stepfather indicated he has not prevented Father from coming to their home or contacting Child, and he has never threatened Father in any way. Id. at 71. Stepfather stated he understood that if Father’s parental rights were terminated, he would be required to adopt Child. Id. at 71. Stepfather explained he wants to adopt Child because “I love him. I love him as much as I love my wife. It was kind of a package deal.” Id. According to Stepfather, he plays a significant role in Child’s life, serving as a role model and keeping Child on track educationally. Id. at 71-72. Stepfather testified Child comes to him when Child has issues, especially with teenage boy things that Child might not want to talk to Mother about. Id. at 72. Stepfather confirmed he coaches Child’s baseball team. Id. Stepfather asserted he is involved with disciplining Child, and his decisions are respected by Child. Id. at 73-74. Stepfather expressed that he understands all the responsibilities that would come with adoption, and has no concerns with any of them, since Child is already included in his last will and testament. Id. at 74-75.
Father
Between Child’s birth in 2011 and April 2016, Father lived in Tennessee and Pennsylvania with Mother, as well as a few other places. Id. at 104.
Father discussed how in 2018, when Child was visiting paternal grandparents while he was out on parole, he stayed overnight at least 3
Since being incarcerated, Father indicated his relationship with Child has changed as they have been limited to phone calls. Id. at 85. Father explained that during his previous incarceration between 2018 and 2022, he had video calls with Child at least once a week. Id. at 110-11. Father said he sends Child birthday and Christmas cards when he can, and he tries to send letters every month, or at least every other month, but it is difficult when he makes a wage of $0.24 an hour. Id. at 85-86. Father discussed the birthday present he had sent, which Mother had previously acknowledged. Id. at 87. According to Father, in 2023, he called Mother 12 times and she only answered once. Id. at 88. In 2024, he called 18 or 19 times, and his calls were answered 3 times. Id. at 89. Father stated he did not call as much in 2025, since his calls were blocked either by the provider or Mother herself. Id. Father declared that every time he called, he would ask to speak with Child and was told no. Id. at 89-90. Father asserted he never agreed he would not try to speak to Child if he returned to prison; it was Mother’s unilateral decision. Id. at 90. Although they used to correspond by letter while Father was incarcerated, Father testified Child has not written any letters back since his re-incarceration in 2022. Id. at 90-91. Father expressed he asked both
When asked whether it was ever his intention to cease being Child’s father, Father said, “I would never cease … being [Child]’s father. I may not be the best one[,] but he is still my son.” Id. at 93. Father described his bond with Child as follows:
[I]t is strained right now because [Mother] hasn’t allowed us to have a relationship. So[,] it … has been strained[,] but he is my son. I’m his [d]ad. When we’re together[,] we have that relationship. I don’t know what [Child] thinks right now[,] because as far as I know[,] he thinks that I don’t want to talk to him because [Mother] hasn’t allowed me to.
Id. at 99-100.
On cross-examination, Father agreed in the 9 years and 2 months between December 2016 and January 2026, he has been out of jail for a total of 15 months. Id. at 108. While on parole between February and July 2022, Father did not file anything with the court to establish his custody rights. Id. at 109-10. When asked whether he would agree it was his own actions that kept him from spending time with Child, Father stated, “[m]y actions did take
When questioned by Child’s GAL/legal counsel, Father once again blamed his lack of relationship with Child on the fact he was blocked by Mother. Id. at 117. At no point did Father attempt to move back to Pennsylvania to be closer to Child. Id. Father also denied he abandoned Child by moving to Tennessee and ending up in prison. Id. at 118-19. Should Father’s parole be denied, the maximum date of his sentence would be somewhere between April 2030 and February 2031. Id. at 123.
Child
Child testified he is 14 years old and in 8th grade. Id. at 142. According to Child, he and Stepfather watch movies together, play football and baseball, and have serious conversations about what is going on in the world. Id. at 144. Child indicated both Mother and Stepfather will discipline him. Id. at 146. When questioned about his relationship with Stepfather, Child explained, “[s]o[,] we’ve talked about how … our relationship isn’t just … a father-son relationship[]. It can also [be] … a friendship[,] and I feel we’ve grown more as friends over the years than we did at the beginning. We’ve … gotten used to each other more.” Id. at 150-51. In response to being asked about Stepfather adopting him, Child declared, “I feel like it’s something that needs to happen. Because … he has been there since I can remember. He’s basically already doing what a dad should do when my father can’t.” Id. at 155. Child
When asked about Father, Child stated, “I mean, obviously — he sen[ds] me letters and stuff but, … I haven’t really talked to him on the phone … since 2017 or 2018 a lot.” Id. at 147. Child testified Mother has given him cards and letters from Father, and Mother allows Father to call and speak to him; however, Father usually calls when Child is at school or Mother is at work, so Child is not physically available to talk. Id. at 152-53. Child explained he typically gets birthday and Christmas cards, along with letters every couple of months. Id. at 156-57. When questioned regarding the reason he has not written back to Father, Child said,
I just haven’t. I don’t know. I felt like I haven’t done it … not that I didn’t want to but … I just didn’t — I don’t know. I just haven’t done it because … I don’t want to do it[,] but not in the sense like … I am mad at you. Like, you sent me letters, I read it, whatever. It’s just like[] you send me letters, cool. Please keep doing that. But I’m not sure you’re going to get one back.
Id. at 157-58. Child clarified no one told him not to write back to Father. Id. at 158. Child testified Mother had told him Father called while she was at work or Child was at school and he saw the phone records during a meeting with Mother’s counsel. Id. at 159. Child confirmed he does not know why Father is incarcerated and he has never asked. Id. at 152-53. Child recounted the last time he saw Father at the zoo with Mother, Stepfather, his paternal grandparents, and younger brother, declaring it was a pretty good
When Child was asked if he could change one thing about his life, what would it be, he responded, “I guess I would rather not have my father in jail and choosing to do whatever he did over me, you know, spending time with me. Because … what he did is keeping him away from me….” Id. at 151. Child expressed he does want a relationship with Father, including sending letters and cards. Id. at 151-52. When asked about his feelings on Father’s parental rights being terminated, Child said, “I mean, okay. It is what it is. You know, like if he didn’t go to jail, he would be able to talk to me every day…. I don’t know. I would feel fine. It wouldn’t bother me too much.” Id. at 154. Child conveyed his disappointment with Father for choosing to do something illegal over being there for his son, but ultimately Child is willing to forgive Father. Id. Child indicated he would like to spend time with Father but only once he is out of prison, has gotten whatever help he needs, and is “completely good.” Id. at 161. Child does not want Mother to feel anxious that Child would be unsafe with Father. Id. at 161-62.
Child confirmed that although he had previously met with Mother’s counsel, he was not threatened or promised anything, and counsel did not try to influence him. Id. at 164. Ultimately, Child voiced his approval for the termination of Father’s parental rights and his adoption by Stepfather. Id. at 166-67. Child stated this is something he decided more recently since “I think I’ve realized that … [Stepfather is] basically already my dad.” Id. at 168.
I would say it has been very rare to find a couple, that being [Mother] and [Stepfather], [who] are so genuinely concerned about the child’s well-being.
***
[T]here’s most often a twinge of discord between what one party thinks about the other[,] and there seems to be some kind of … influence in the background when it comes to trying to influence the child [by] one parent over the other.
***
I do not have any feeling about that from [Mother,] or from [Stepfather,] or from [Child].
[Mother] and [Stepfather] have somehow been able to keep [Child] from learning about what … [Father] has done and why he is incarcerated.
[Mother] has done an amazing job over years and years of trying to maintain the relationship [between Child] and … [Father].
She ultimately put her foot down the last time … [Father was] incarcerated and she told him she would before it happened.
And I feel that after getting a full picture of what has gone on in this family, that she has done what needs to be done to protect [Child’s] … best interest.
I also think that [Stepfather] and [Child] have a very unique relationship.
The two of them, it’s beyond just simple discipline and that type of parental role[,] and more like [Child] has had an opportunity to talk to somebody about things that are difficult for him as a 14-year-old boy.
With [Stepfather], he has … that special bond, that special relationship that he can really learn from [Stepfather,] and … both
[Stepfather] and [Mother] have lots of integrity and wish their child the best. I think that when it comes to [Child]’s best interest, he is in a very stable environment at this point in time.
The court has heard he get[s] A[s] and Bs. He is very intelligent obviously. He has [a] good social life and a good sports life outside of school. And anything that would come in and disrupt that, I do not believe would be in his best interest.
With all that said, it is very important, I think, that [Father] understand[s] that [Child] still wants to maintain communication with him. He still cares about him as his father.
Yet, [Child] is in a situation where he is old enough and mature enough to understand that logistically[,] and in actuality, [Stepfather] is acting as his father and, therefore, it should be formalized as such.
But, again, I think it is very important for [Father] to understand that [Child] still wants a relationship with him. He wants to maintain the communication that they have been able to maintain over the past couple of years.
And that at some point in the future when [Father] is no longer incarcerated and has … truly rehabilitated himself, that [Child] wants to have that communication potentially increase.
***
And therefore, based on all of that and [Child’s] understanding and mature preference when it comes to … this situation, I really believe that [Child] understands all of it very well and that his preference is in his best interest and that is to have [Stepfather] adopt him as his own.
Id. at 177-80 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
At the close of the hearing, the orphans’ court directed the parties to file proposed findings of fact, a proposed final decree, and an accompanying brief within 20 days. After the expiration of 20 days, on March 16, 2026, the orphans’ court issued extensive findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final
Issues
On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review:
- On appeal to the Superior Court, … Father intends to raise allegations of error and abuse of discretion in regards to the [c]ourt’s finding that there were grounds for termination pursuant to
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) . - … Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that “Mother has proven by clear and convincing and competent evidence that … Father’s conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the Petition, has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to … [C]hild, … or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.”
- … Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that “the repeated and continued incapacity, neglect, or refusal of [Father] has caused [Child] to be without [Father]’s essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for [Child]’s physical or mental well-being, and the conditions and causes of incapacity, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by [Father].”
- … Father argues that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that “Father has only made sporadic efforts at best to maintain a relationship with his son while incarcerated.”
- … Father argues that the record does not support the trial court’s finding that “there is no bond between [Child] and [Father] that would be harmed by termination of parental rights vested in [Father]” and that termination is in the best interests of the child.
Analysis
Our standard of review is well-established:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts “to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). “If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. “A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. Id. at 827. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d [1179,] 1190[ (Pa. 2010)].
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (cleaned up). “[T]he trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.
Id. (cleaned up). We need only agree with the orphans’ court as to any one subsection of
Section 2511(a)(1)
We begin by addressing whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion by terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to
To satisfy Section 2511(a)(1), the moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.
Section 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to perform parental duties. Accordingly, parental rights may be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) if the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties.
Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation for his or her conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to Section 2511(b).
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). Although orphans’ courts should consider the whole history of the case in assessing evidence under
Further,
[t]o be legally significant, the [post-abandonment] contact must be steady and consistent over a period of time, contribute to the psychological health of the child, and must demonstrate a serious
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1119 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted); see also In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1006 (Pa. Super 2008) (en banc). Regarding parental duties, our Supreme Court has explained:
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child.
Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance in the child‘s life.
C.M.S., 832 A.2d at 462 (quoting In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 1977)) (cleaned up). “A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship.” In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Finally, with respect to an incarcerated parent, this Court has stated:
[I]ncarceration alone does not provide sufficient grounds for the termination of parental rights. Likewise, a parent‘s incarceration does not preclude termination of parental rights if the incarcerated parent fails to utilize given resources and [fails] to take affirmative
steps to support a parent-child relationship. As such, a parent‘s responsibilities are not tolled during incarceration. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one‘s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.
In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Instantly, Father claims the orphans’ court erred in terminating his parental rights under Section 2511(a)(1), because “the record is void of any evidence that ... Father had a[] settled purpose of relinquishing [his] parental claim and that he refused to perform parental duties.” Father‘s Brief at 19. He argues, “[d]espite all of the barriers ... Mother intentionally put in place, ... Father has persisted with continuing to send ... [C]hild gifts, cards, and letters to preserve the parent-child relationship.” Id. at 18. In support, Father avers:
Due to ... Father[‘s] being incarcerated, he is incredibly limited in his modes of communication with ... [C]hild. By ... Mother[‘s] blocking telephone contact, that created a barrier to communication ... which ... Father had to overcome. ... [He] overcame this barrier by continuing to send ... [C]hild gifts, letters, and cards. In the six months prior to ... Mother[‘s] filing her [IVT P]etition, ... Father sent ... [C]hild a birthday gift, which was a Superman comic book, and a birthday card. ... [C]hild confirmed receipt of this card and gift. Despite ... Mother‘s testimony that ... Father only sporadically sent ... [C]hild letters, both ... [C]hild and ... [Father] credibly testified that ... Father sends ... [C]hild letters every other month. ... Father‘s efforts to maintain his bond with ... [C]hild were not sporadic. It is unrefuted that ... [C]hild used to send ... Father letters in response but no longer does so. Notably, ... [C]hild[,] in his interview[,] did not give a clear reason to why he stopped writing letters to his father and expressed that he would want to see ... Father only if ... Mother was “comfortable” with it. ... Mother testified that she did not allow ... [C]hild to write letters to ... Father during the time of his current incarceration.
... [C]hild testified that he had seen a call log of when ... Father called ... Mother, and it was allegedly when he was in school or ... Mother was at work. Based on this testimony, it is clear ... Mother sought to interfere with ... [C]hild‘s relationship with ... Father and that she sought to weaken their bond. Otherwise, ... Mother would have shielded ... [C]hild from this information. ... [C]hild also testified that it was over time that [he] has become friends with his stepfather. It is not a coincidence that this friendship coincides with ... Mother‘s filing of the [IVT P]etition. This is an example of another barrier that ... Mother has erected for ... Father. Finally, ... Father testified that he was initially unable to even obtain a picture of ... [C]hild due to ... Mother[‘s] refusing to provide one, creating yet another barrier. Taking great lengths, ... Father was eventually able to obtain a picture from his niece.
Id. at 16-18 (citations to the record and unnecessary capitalization omitted). Father fails to convince us any relief is due on this claim.
The orphans’ court found Mother met her burden in proving the termination of Father‘s parental rights was warranted under Section 2511(a)(1). In support of its decision, the orphans’ court made, inter alia, the following findings:
14. [Father] voluntarily chose to abdicate his role of being an active father for [Child] in 2015, by moving to Tennessee.
15. Since 2015, [Father] has never elected to visit [Child] in Pennsylvania.
16. [Father] has not involved himself in any way with [Child]‘s education, healthcare, or extracurricular activities since 2015.
17. [Father] has not provided any guidance, support, discipline, or mentoring for [Child] since 2015.
18. [Father] last spent any time with [Child] in 2022, when [Father] saw [Child] at a zoo in Tennessee for a few hours while being supervised by [Mother] and [Stepfather].
19. [Father] also saw [Child] in July 2022 for a few hours at his parents’ home; however, [Father] was arrested said evening.
20. On both occasions referenced in the immediately prior paragraph[s], [Mother] paid for and transported [Child] to the visits with [Father]. Neither of said visits were mandated by any custody agreement or court order.
***
25. [Father] has been incarcerated due to his election to commit crimes and not remain as a law-abiding citizen.
26. During the periods he has not been incarcerated, [Father] never requested to come to Pennsylvania and visit with [Child], or view [Child] engaged in his activities.
27. During the periods he was not incarcerated, [Father] has never filed any civil action to gain custodial rights of [Child]. [Father] has furthermore not sought legal recourse while incarcerated as to his alleged desire for communication with his son.
28. [Father] has sporadically sent cards to [Child] on special occasions while incarcerated.
29. On one occasion, during [Child]‘s lifetime, [Father] sent [Child] a gift....
30. [Father] has occasionally called [Mother] and inquired as to [Child]. Said calls were placed at a time when [Mother] was at work and when [Child] was not available to speak to [Father], even if [Father] had asked to speak to [Child], which he did not.
31. Over concern for [Child]s safety, in light of [Mother]‘s belief that [Father] was affiliated with a gang while in prison, and due to her belief that [Father] had been the victim of a violent assault while in prison, [Mother] has declined to provide [Father] with a photograph of [Child].
32. Despite [Father‘s] knowledge of the aforementioned, [he] surreptitiously engaged a 12-year-old relative of his to obtain and forward to [Father] not only a photograph of [Child,] but that of [Child]‘s 10-year-old sibling (who is not related to [Father]) and of [Mother].
33. [Mother] discussed with [Father] prior to his most recent incarceration that, if he was again incarcerated, that it would not be in the best interests of [Child] to communicate with [Father] by telephone.
***
37. [Mother] has created some barriers in which [Father] had to overcome[,] such as[,] preventing him from speaking with ... [C]hild on the telephone; showing ... [C]hild call logs in which [Father] allegedly called when ... [C]hild was not available; and refusing to send [Father] a picture of ... [C]hild.
***
45. [Child] has received cards from [Father] on special occasions, but has voluntarily determined that he does not want to write back to [Father] at this time.
46. [Child] confirmed that he has not been prevented, in any manner, from receiving or initiating communication with [Father].
Decree at 2-6 (unpaginated).
Additionally, the orphans’ court opined:
Father only made a few infrequent attempts to contact ... [C]hild through Mother who was not willing to accommodate his calls. Calls themselves are not the only method to contact ... [C]hild. He could have written cards, letters[,] or notes and mailed them to his son. He could have arranged for small gifts to have been delivered to him through paternal grandmother. He did not do that.
Father also had earned the opportunity to resume parenting when paroled after his initial sentence in Tennessee. He should have valued his freedom from incarceration[;] instead, he did not conduct himself in accordance with his supervision rules and was found in violation of his parole, leading to his reincarceration. That prompted Mother to take steps to limit Father‘s access to ... [Child], as she desired to protect him from the disappointment that ... [F]ather‘s reincarceration would [cause]. While she could limit contact via telephone, she could not prevent Father from writing to his son, which would be documentary evidence of his intent to maintain a relationship.
***
Father did not pursue all options in trying to maintain a relationship with his son, and to try and counter Mother‘s decision to prohibit him from speaking to [C]hild through her assistance.
Mother‘s decision was not devious, underhanded[,] or misleading. Father knew what he was up against, but he didn‘t try and use his mother, paternal grandmother, to facilitate contact with his son. He essentially consented to Mother‘s position on the matter of having limited contact with ... [Child]. His contact was minimal and supports the [orphans‘] court‘s findings based on competent evidence that Father evidenced a settled intent to relinquish his parental rights. Father‘s lack of effort to maintain contact and perform parental duties was within the six months prior to the filing of Mother‘s petition to terminate his rights.
OCO at 5-7 (internal citations omitted).
Upon review, we deem the orphans’ court‘s factual findings to be supported by competent evidence of record, and we will not disturb those findings. See Q.R.D., supra; T.S.M., supra. Thus, our review of the record convinces us competent evidence exists to support the orphans’ court‘s determination that, under the totality of the circumstances, the elements of Section 2511(a)(1) have been met regarding Father. The record reflects Father has demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim and failed to perform parental duties in both the six months preceding the filing of the October 7, 2025 IVT Petition, and the decade prior.
Father argued to the orphans’ court, as he does here, that Mother established barriers which Father exercised reasonable firmness to overcome. Although the orphans’ court agreed Mother had created some barriers, it concluded that by sending one gift, the occasional card or letter, and by making sporadic calls during times Mother was working, Father did not exercise reasonable firmness in resisting the obstacles before him. See In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d at 855 (“A parent must utilize all available resources to
Similarly, Father wasted several opportunities to preserve his parental relationship with Child and engage in parental duties during the time periods he was not incarcerated. The only in-person visits Father has had with Child since moving to Tennessee occurred because Mother spent the time and money to transport Child to Tennessee. Further, Father‘s repeated failure to live a law-abiding life has harmed Child‘s well-being, causing Child to act out in school and at home due to frustration and anger with Father. The barriers put in place by Mother were to protect Child from additional harm caused by Father.
Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, Father has failed to perform his parental duties since at least 2016 and has demonstrated a settled
Section 2511(b)
Since we have determined the evidence supported the involuntary termination of Father‘s parental rights under Section 2511(a)(1), we next consider Section 2511(b). With respect to Section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has explained:
[C]ourts should consider the matter from the child‘s perspective, placing [the child‘s] developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare above concerns for the parent.
Accordingly, the determination of the child‘s particular developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare must be made on a case-by-case basis. We have observed the law regarding termination of parental rights should not be applied mechanically but instead always with an eye to the best interests and the needs and welfare of the particular children involved. Thus, the court must determine each child‘s specific needs.
Moreover, the child‘s emotional needs and welfare include intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability. As further guidance, we have identified factors, i.e., specific needs and aspects of the child‘s welfare, that trial courts must always consider. The court must consider whether the children are in a
pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents. And, if the child has any bond with the biological parent, the court must conduct an analysis of that bond, which is not always an easy task.
Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105-06 (Pa. 2023) (cleaned up). It is not enough that there exists a bond between parent and child to avoid termination. See id. at 1109. Rather, the orphans’ court must determine whether the bond is “necessary and beneficial” to the child, such that “maintaining the bond serves the child‘s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.” Id. at 1105-06, 1109. Focusing upon the “child‘s development, and mental and emotional health,” the orphans’ court should assess whether severing the bond “is the kind of loss that would predictably cause extreme emotional consequences or significant, irreparable harm” to the child. Id. at 1110-11.
Here, the orphans’ court found:
[A]lthough [Child] acknowledged the existence of ... Father and had even openly indicated that he may likely elect to speak to ... Father, he would not be harmed if their bond as father and son was legally severed. [Child] was composed during his interview. He showed a maturity and a high level of rational thought as he discussed his relationship with Father and his proposed adoptive parent, ... [S]tepfather. He was able to discuss in detail how ... [S]tepfather and he had developed a bond and that ... [S]tepfather acted like a father for him for several years. The GAL gave a resounding endorsement of [Child]‘s position related to his relationship with Father and [S]tepfather. Termination of Father‘s parental rights and the ultimate approval of [S]tepfather‘s adoption of [Child] would be in [Child]‘s best interests.
There are considerations such as love, emotional support, and sense of self that are also important for the court to consider when making the decision to terminate parental rights. Here, [Child] has clearly and unequivocally convinced this court that he will
have a healthy relationship with ... Father as he matures, but will most benefit by having ... [S]tepfather adopt him.
OCO at 9-10 (internal citations omitted).
Contrarily, Father argues the orphans’ court erred in finding termination is in Child‘s best interest as there is a bond between Father and Child. Father‘s Brief at 22-24. He argues:
During ... [C]hild‘s interview, it became clear that [Child] still wants a relationship with ... Father and sees his stepfather as more of his friend versus a father. From ... [C]hild‘s testimony, it can reasonably be inferred that ... [C]hild and ... Father have a bond. It is in the child‘s best interests to preserve that bond. It is a credit to ... Father who, despite being incarcerated for a number of years, has persevered in maintaining the parent-child bond with ... [C]hild. Stepfather is no substitute for the ... [C]hild‘s actual father, who ... [C]hild still cares about and wants a relationship with.
Id. at 24. Father also notes Child testified he has a close bond with paternal grandparents, and if Father‘s parental rights are terminated, there is nothing preventing Mother from severing that bond. Id. at 23.8
Given the foregoing, which includes both Child‘s and the GAL‘s support, see N.T. at 180 (Child‘s GAL/legal counsel‘s advocating “... based on [the full picture regarding this family] and [Child‘s] understanding and mature
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 09/01/2026