J-S01013-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: J.C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.L.C., BIOLOGICAL :
FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1712 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered October 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 2017-701
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2019
C.L.C. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered October 2, 2018, in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, that granted the petition of
M.B. and A.B., and involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his son,
J.C.C. (“Child”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption
Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101–2938.1 After careful review, we affirm.
Child was born in June of 2014 to Mother and Father. See N.T.,
4/17/18, at 7-8, 14. Prior to Child’s birth, Mother and Father were in a
relationship. See id. at 56. However, by the time of Child’s birth, Mother and
Father had separated. See id. at 56-57. Father was arrested in early 2014
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The orphans’ court voluntarily terminated the parental rights of Child’s
mother, J.V. (“Mother”). Mother did not file a notice of appeal and has not
participated in this appeal.
J-S01013-19
for a number of drug and firearms related offenses. In June of 2014, Father
pled guilty to various charges and was sentenced to five to thirteen years of
incarceration. See id. at 110. His earliest release date is late April of 2019.
See id. Following Child’s birth, Mother cared for Child for approximately six
weeks. See id. at 59. Thereafter, she too was incarcerated. See id. After
Child moved between various family members, Mother’s cousin, M.B., and his
wife, A.B., agreed to care for Child. See id. at 8-18. Child has lived with M.B.
and A.B. since he was an infant. See id. at 28-30.
Father has never met Child. See id. at 92-93. Father filed a complaint
in custody in March of 2015 seeking custody of Child. See Petitioners’ Exhibit
3. Father only named Mother as a defendant, and M.B. and A.B. intervened.
Subsequently, the court awarded M.B. and A.B. sole legal and primary physical
custody of Child after Father did not call in to the custody conciliation. See
N.T., 4/17/18, at 92; Petitioners’ Exhibit 4. The order provided Father “such
rights to partial custody as the parties may agree.” Petitioners’ Exhibit 4.
Father made no further attempts to obtain a more favorable custody order, or
to seek court intervention to permit him to see Child. See N.T., 4/17/18, at
119. Father’s only communication with Child has consisted of sending letters
and cards directed to Child approximately every three months. See id. at 99-
107, 116.
On November 15, 2017, M.B. and A.B. filed a petition to involuntarily
terminate Father’s parental rights to Child. On April 17, 2018, the court held
-2-
J-S01013-19
a hearing on the petition.2 M.B. and A.B. testified on their own behalves, as
did Father. Further, M.B. and A.B. presented the testimony of Mother. Father
presented the testimony of his son, C.C. On October 2, 2018, the court
entered an order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child.
Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
On appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the [orphans’] court committed an error of law,
and/or abused its discretion in terminati[ng] the parental rights of
[Father?]
B. Whether the [orphans’] court committed an error of law,
and/or abused its discretion in finding [Father’s] parental rights
were properly terminated under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)[?]
C. Whether the [orphans’] court committed an error of law
and/or abused its discretion in determining that parental rights
should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)[?]
____________________________________________
2 We briefly address, sua sponte, the representation of counsel for Child. See
In re: K.J.H., 180 A.3d 411, 412-414 (Pa. Super. 2018). By order of court
dated December 6, 2017, the orphans’ court appointed Attorney Harry Fenton
as counsel for Child. See In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2018) (citing In re
Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017)) (stating that, pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a), a child who is the subject of a contested involuntary
termination proceeding has a statutory right to counsel who discerns and
advocates for his or her legal interests, which our Supreme Court has defined
as the child’s preferred outcome). Attorney Fenton appropriately represented
Child’s legal interests by cross-examining witnesses, by submitting a post-
hearing brief arguing for termination of Father’s parental rights, and by filing
a brief on appeal in support of affirming the court’s termination of Father’s
parental rights.
-3-
J-S01013-19
Father’s brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization and suggested answers
omitted).3
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated
analysis:
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.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
In this case, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) and (b). Section 2511(a)(1) and (b) provide
as follows.
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the
following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at
least six months immediately preceding the filing of the
petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or
failed to perform parental duties.
***
____________________________________________
3 Father’s brief combines the argument for his first and second issues.
-4-
J-S01013-19
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
which are first initiated subsequent to the giving notice of the filing
of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and (b).
With respect to 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.” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted).
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.
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (emphases
in original) (citation omitted).
Our courts have explained that parental duty “is best understood in
relation to the needs of a child.” In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 1977).
A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These
needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive
-5-
J-S01013-19
interest in the development of the child. Thus, this Court 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.’
Id. (citations omitted).
Addressing the performance of parental duties by incarcerated parents,
our Supreme Court discussed In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa.
1975), and explained as follows:
Applying in McCray the provision for termination of parental
rights based upon abandonment, now codified as § 2511(a)(1),
we noted that a parent “has an affirmative duty to love, protect
and support his child and to make an effort to maintain
communication and association with that child.” Id. at 655. We
observed that the father’s incarceration made his performance of
this duty “more difficult.” Id.
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 828 (Pa. 2012). The S.P. Court
continued:
[A] parent’s absence and/or failure to support due to
incarceration is not conclusive on the issue of
abandonment. Nevertheless, we are not willing to
completely toll a parent’s responsibilities during his or her
incarceration. Rather, we must inquire whether the parent
has utilized those resources at his or her command while
in prison in continuing a close relationship with the child.
Where the parent does not exercise reasonable firmness in
declining to yield to obstacles, his other rights may be
forfeited.
Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added, brackets in original).
-6-
J-S01013-19
Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties or a
settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, we have explained that 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 at 730 (citation omitted).
In addressing Section 2511(a)(1), the orphans’ court credited Father’s
testimony that he regularly sent letters and cards to Child. See Orphans’
Court Opinion, 10/2/2018, at 14-15. The court characterized the letters as
addressing Father’s own life and routine, along with future plans of what
Father intended to do with Child. See id. at 13. The court believed that the
letters were sent “on a three month schedule so as to avoid the termination
of his parental rights.” See id. The court acknowledged Father asserted M.B.
and A.B. placed barriers to prevent him from contacting Child, but ultimately
rejected Father’s position. See id. at 13-16. The court concluded that Father
failed to explain why he did not take steps to foster a relationship with Child,
and that Father failed to fulfill his parental duties for at least six months
preceding the filing of the petition to involuntarily terminate his parental
rights. See id. at 15-16.
Father argues the orphans’ court erred because M.B. and A.B. put up a
wall between Father and Child to prevent Father from performing any parental
duties. See Father’s brief at 19. Father faults M.B. and A.B. for not calling
-7-
J-S01013-19
him while he was incarcerated, not providing Father with their phone number,
and not attempting to be placed on Father’s prison contact list. See id. Father
also notes that he sent letters every three months to Child and filed a custody
complaint. See id. at 18-19. Father argues that his prison counselor’s failure
to assist him with calling in to his custody conciliation precluded him from
being afforded any custody rights regarding Child while he was incarcerated.
See id. at 21. Father insists that “he did everything that he could, within his
power and control, to maintain a relationship with [Child].” See id. at 23.
However, the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that
Father refused or failed to perform parental duties. Father acknowledges that
he has never met Child, who is now four years old. See id. at 92-93. His
sole contact with Child is to send letters and cards, approximately every three
months, “like clockwork,” to show that he “did something.” See id. at 100,
116. However, Father never called Child, never provided Child financial
support, and never asked for photographs directly from M.B. and A.B. Id. at
107, 125-26, 129-30. Further, Father never requested information regarding
Child’s health, welfare, or wellbeing from M.B. and A.B. See id. at 126.
Father did attempt to file for custody in 2015, but, after he failed to call in to
the hearing, Father took no further steps to obtain a custody order that
allowed him contact with Child. See id. at 119.
Here, the orphans’ court determined that M.B. and A.B. established, by
clear and convincing evidence, a basis for termination of Father’s parental
-8-
J-S01013-19
rights under Section 2511(a)(1). Based on the evidence before it, the
orphans’ court was entitled to find that Father did not exert a sincere and
genuine effort to maintain a parent-child relationship, using all available
resources to preserve the parental relationship while exercising “reasonable
firmness” in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-
child relationship. See In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d at 462.
Indeed, it is undisputed Father has never met Child, and only sent
limited communications directed to Child. The evidence establishes Father
failed to perform any parental duties for Child. Accordingly, we discern no
abuse of discretion or error of law in the orphans’ court’s analysis, and we will
not disturb the orphans’ court’s findings with regard to Section 2511(a)(1).
We next determine whether termination was proper under Section
2511(b). This Court has stated that the focus in terminating parental rights
under Section 2511(a) is on the parent, but it is on the child pursuant to
Section 2511(b). See In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa.
Super. 2008) (en banc). In reviewing the evidence in support of termination
under Section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has stated as follows.
[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a
court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child have
been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such as love,
comfort, security, and stability.” In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791
(Pa. Super. 2012). In In re E.M., [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)],
this Court held that the determination of the child’s “needs and
welfare” requires consideration of the emotional bonds between
the parent and child. The “utmost attention” should be paid to
-9-
J-S01013-19
discerning the effect on the child of permanently severing the
parental bond. In re K.M., 53 A.3d at 791.
In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).
When evaluating a parental bond, “the court is not required to use
expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as
well. Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding
evaluation.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations
omitted). Although it is often wise to have a bonding evaluation and make it
part of the certified record, “[t]here are some instances . . . where direct
observation of the interaction between the parent and the child is not
necessary and may even be detrimental to the child.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d
753, 762 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
A parent’s abuse and neglect are likewise a relevant part of this
analysis:
concluding a child has a beneficial bond with a parent simply
because the child harbors affection for the parent is not only
dangerous, it is logically unsound. If a child’s feelings were the
dispositive factor in the bonding analysis, the analysis would be
reduced to an exercise in semantics as it is the rare child who,
after being subject to neglect and abuse, is able to sift through
the emotional wreckage and completely disavow a parent . . . Nor
are we of the opinion that the biological connection between [the
parent] and the children is sufficient in of itself, or when
considered in connection with a child’s feeling toward a parent, to
establish a de facto beneficial bond exists. The psychological
aspect of parenthood is more important in terms of the
development of the child and [his or her] mental and emotional
health than the coincidence of biological or natural parenthood.
- 10 -
J-S01013-19
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Thus, the court may emphasize the safety needs of the child. See In
re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 763. “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the
custody and rearing of . . . her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill . .
. her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and
fulfillment of [the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe
environment.” In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation
omitted).
In terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b), the
orphans’ court concluded that Father never met nor interacted with Child and,
therefore, that no bond existed between Father and Child. See Orphans’ Court
Opinion, 10/2/18, at 16. Further, the court observed that M.B. and A.B. have
had custody of Child since he was an infant, and provided for all of his medical
care and schooling. See id. at 16-17. The court noted that Child developed
a strong bond with M.B. and A.B., and refers to them as “mom and dad.” See
id. at 17. The court determined that termination of Father’s parental rights
meets Child’s needs and welfare. See id.
Father argues the orphans’ court erred because his incarceration cannot
be used as a ground for terminating his parental rights. See Father’s brief at
30. Father asserts that his rights cannot be terminated due to a lack of
housing, furniture, income, clothing, and medical care, because his lack of
- 11 -
J-S01013-19
these items is beyond Father’s control due to his incarceration. See id. Father
acknowledges that his incarceration is the result of his actions, but notes he
“hopes to be released from prison on April 27, 2019. . . .” See id.
The record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that termination of
Father’s parental rights best serves Child’s needs and welfare. There is no
evidence of any bond between Father and Child. During Father’s testimony,
he acknowledged that he has never met Child, as Child was born while Father
was incarcerated. See N.T., 4/17/2018, at 92-93. Father testified that his
plan, upon his release from prison, would be to have supervised visitation with
Child so that they could get to know each other and form a bond. See id. at
112. M.B. testified that Child would not recognize Father and does not have
a bond with Father. See id. at 34. M.B. and A.B. both testified that Child has
bonded to them and their family. See id. at 32-33, 80-81. M.B. and A.B.
have provided care for Child, and Child refers to M.B. and A.B. as “mom” and
“dad.” See id. at 28-29, 33. Child has become part of their family, and M.B.
and A.B. wish to adopt Child. See id. at 32, 82-83.
The orphans’ court appropriately concluded that Father has no bond with
Child. Father has never even met Child, let alone provided care for Child.
Meanwhile, Child has been cared for by M.B. and A.B. for nearly his entire life,
and M.B. and A.B. have provided Child with love, safety, stability, and support.
Accordingly, it is clear that terminating Father’s parental rights would best
serve Child’s needs and welfare pursuant to Section 2511(b).
- 12 -
J-S01013-19
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not
commit an error of law or abuse of discretion by involuntarily terminating
Father’s parental rights. Therefore, we affirm the court’s October 2, 2018
order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/19/2019
- 13 -