J-S80001-18
2019 PA Super 85
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: B.G.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.R.R. AND M.F.R., II
No. 2625 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 2017-A0100
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and NICHOLS, J.
OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 21, 2019
S.R.R. (Adoptive Mother) and M.F.R., II (Adoptive Father) (collectively
Adoptive Parents) appeal from the August 8, 2018 order that granted E.A.W.’s
(Birth Mother) petition to enforce the Post Adoption Contact Agreement
(PACA), which was entered into by the parties in regard to E.S.R. (Child), 1
born in April of 2017. After review, we affirm.
This matter involves a private voluntary adoption of Child that was
coordinated by Haven Adoptions. Child was placed with Adoptive Parents
when she was two days old. Following the submission of the proper consents,
the trial court issued the final decree confirming consents on July 31, 2017.
Although a motion was filed to stay the adoption with corresponding
preliminary objections, these documents were withdrawn and, following a
hearing on the adoption petition, the adoption was finalized and the PACA was
executed. The parties acknowledged that they entered into the PACA
____________________________________________
1 E.S.R. was formerly known as B.G.W.
J-S80001-18
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The relevant portions of the PACA
provide:
(2) Visitation: Visits shall occur at least THREE (3) times per
year, with one of the visits to take place around the time of []
[C]hild’s birthday. Visits shall be arranged by and between the
Adoptive Parents and [Birth Mother]. The visits shall be for at
least 2 hours until [] [C]hild is 3 years old, unless the parties agree
to an alternative time period. … Unless otherwise agreed, all
visits shall occur within Montgomery County, PA.
(3) … All [p]arties will conduct themselves appropriately during
visitation and will not engage in any disputes or harsh language.
No [p]arty shall ever speak negatively about any other [p]arty to
this agreement (or any relatives who are not [p]arties to the
agreement) to [] [C]hild or allow any other person to do so while
in the presence of [] [C]hild. All parties recognize and support the
concept that a good relationship between them and their families
is certainly best for [] [C]hild. Appropriate behavior, given all the
issues involved for a child who joins a family through adoption,
shall be utilized by all parties at all times. Should any negative or
inappropriate behavior occur, then in that event, for that
particular visit, the Adoptive Parents may terminate that particular
visit. It is anticipated that all parties will put [] [C]hild’s welfare
and best interest first and all parties will engage in appropriate
behavior.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/20/18, at 2 (quoting the PACA at 4-5).
Based upon the testimony provided at the hearing held on August 8,
2018, in response to Birth Mother’s petition, the trial court set forth factual
findings in its opinion, stating:
The first visit following the execution of the PACA occurred
April 29, 2018. The visit occurred at an agreed upon location
called The Little Pod in North Wales, Pennsylvania. Adoptive
[P]arents were present with [Child] as well as [B]irth [M]other and
her mother.
Two days later, [B]irth [M]other wrote a letter to the [c]ourt
requesting enforcement of the PACA based upon events that
occurred during this visit. This letter was filed with the
-2-
J-S80001-18
Montgomery County Orphans’ Court as a Petition. A Rule to Show
Cause Why the PACA Should Not Be Enforced was entered for June
19, 2018. See, 23 Pa.C.S. §[]2738(a). Thereafter, this [c]ourt
scheduled a one-half day hearing to hear Petition To Enforce the
PACA on August 8, 2018.
During the August 8th hearing, [B]irth [M]other testified that
she and her mother arrived at the Little Pod first and waited near
the food area. [Adoptive Father] completely ignored [B]irth
[M]other when he walked into the building and took [] [C]hild to
the play area. [Adoptive Mother] approached [B]irth [M]other
[and] told them ‘they were going to play over there’ and walked
away. Birth [M]other followed [Adoptive Mother] to the play area
and approached [Adoptive Father,] who was holding the child. As
she reached out to say hello and touch [Child], the [A]doptive
[F]ather pulled [] [C]hild away and said that ‘there would be no
direct contact; there will be no touching; we are concerned for her
safety’. When asked what the safety concerns were, [A]doptive
[F]ather would just repeat 'we are concerned for her safety’ and
then told [Birth Mother] that he did not have to explain himself to
[her] and he was the parent and what he said went. NT, 8/8/18,
p. 8-9; 35-42. Whenever [B]irth [M]other tried to approach []
[C]hild, [A]doptive [F]ather would continually block her with his
body or would pick [] [C]hild up and move her away from [B]irth
[M]other. The only time [B]irth [M]other was able to approach []
[C]hild was when [Adoptive Father] was not present. Birth
[M]other testified that out of the two (2) hour visit, she had
approximately forty (40) minutes of interaction with [] [C]hild.
NT, 8/8/18, p. 10.
[Adoptive Father] did not dispute [B]irth [M]other’s
testimony. He maintained that he kept [] [C]hild from [B]irth
[M]other out of safety concerns for [] [C]hild. When asked
repeatedly what these safety concerns were, he would simply cite
concerns of [] [C]hild falling or getting hurt to justify not allowing
[] [B]irth [M]other to have physical contact with [] [C]hild. NT,
8/8/18, p. 31-42.
The following are excerpts of [Adoptive Father’s] testimony
while being questioned by counsel for [B]irth [M]other[,] which
this [c]ourt found significant:
By Counsel: ... So in that belief and in the
maintenance of the relationship, wouldn’t it make
-3-
J-S80001-18
sense that these visits include physical contact and
interaction?
[Adoptive Father]: Interaction, yes. Physical contact,
no. I am not going to force it on my daughter. I am
not going to force someone to kiss or hold or touch
her. I don’t believe that’s appropriate.
Counsel: I am not asking you whether to force it. But
rather would you find it acceptable that in a visit if my
client was to extend her hand to your daughter and
touched that hand, is that appropriate?
[Adoptive Father]: That’s fine and that occurred.
Counsel: And so physical touch, if my client was - or
your daughter was to walk up to my client and
approach my client and my client picked her up, that
would be appropriate?
[Adoptive Father]: No.
Counsel: Why is that not appropriate?
[Adoptive Father]: Again, going back to her safety.
You know, there is certain [sic] when you are around
infants and things like that and toddlers, you know,
you need to be very careful how you pick them up and
know what you are doing.
NT[,] 8/8/18, pp. 34-35.
Counsel: So if my client is being able to interact and
touch her [Child] and she is accepting of that, what is
the harm to her? What is the harm to [Child]?
[Adoptive Father]: Again, I need a specific. I don’t
know what you mean by interaction. Give me an
example. If she is running around and she wants to,
you know, pick her up or [Child] is stumbling, what
are you talking about? You are asking me for a yes or
no answer, but there is not an example of what you
are speaking of. That’s why I am confused....
-4-
J-S80001-18
Counsel: Let me say that if my client extends her hand
out to your daughter and your daughter extends her
hand and hops up in her lap, is that going to be
harmful to your daughter?
[Adoptive Father]: Potentially, sure.
Counsel: And how is that?
[Adoptive Father]: What if she hops up and falls off?
A lot of ifs can happen. Anything is potential. I don’t
know what else to say.
NT, 8/8/18, p. 41-42.
[Adoptive Father] simply failed to provide any reasonable or
logical explanation as to what safety concerns he has with [B]irth
[M]other having physical contact with [Child]. Interestingly,
[Adoptive Father] acknowledged in his testimony that prior to the
finalization of the adoption and the execution of the PACA, he and
his wife would allow [B]irth [M]other] to hold [Child]. NT, 8/8/18,
p. 31. Yet, [Adoptive Father] insisted his behavior was justified
during the April 29th visit and he was compliant with the terms of
the PACA. NT, 8/8/18, p. 48-49.
TCO at 3-5.
The trial court further explained that its resulting order, enforcing the
PACA, directed “that the visits involve interaction and communication,
including touching.” Id. at 5. The court also ordered “that the next visit shall
be supervised by a neutral third party….” Id. Additionally, the court stated
that although the PACA did not include this specific language, such behavior
was implicit in the agreement, particularly, because that behavior was
acceptable prior to the parties’ entering into the PACA. The court concluded
that
-5-
J-S80001-18
[t]hese visits between [B]irth [M]other and [Child] should not be
likened to a prison visit, where touching and physical interaction
is prohibited, as analogized by counsel for [Adoptive Father]. NT,
8/8/18, p.46. More appropriately, this [c]ourt cannot imagine an
ongoing relationship with [B]irth [M]other that does not include
communication and physical interaction. The fact that this [c]ourt
must spell this out to [] [A]doptive [F]ather is troubling.
Id. at 6.
Following the entry of the August 8, 2018 order, Adoptive Parents filed
the instant appeal to this Court, and now raise three issues for our review:
A. Did the [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion by defining visits
between [] [C]hild and [] [Birth mother in its August 8, 2018
[o]rder as to include “touching” when the [PACA] did not
specify touching?
B. Did the [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion by deeming
[Birth Mother’s] May 1, 2018 correspondence[,] which
specifically requested a modification of the [PACA] to
eliminate [A]doptive [F]ather from the visits and requested
a supervisor in the visits as constituting a request for
enforcement of the [PACA]?
C. Did the [c]ourt err and abuse its discretion by adding in its
August 8, 2018 [o]rder a direction that the next visit needed
to be supervised by a neutral third party, which was the
modification [Birth Mother] requested where the statute, 23
Pa.C.S. § 2737(a), specifically states that only adoptive
parents or children can request modification?
Adoptive Parents’ brief at 8.
Although this appeal does not involve either a termination of parental
rights or a dependency action, we recognize that the following excerpt from
In re C.M.C., 140 A.3d 699 (Pa. Super. 2016), provides guidance for the
application of a proper standard of review.
-6-
J-S80001-18
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard
when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for
termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our
standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the
findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if
they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., … 9 A.3d 1179,
1190 ([Pa.] 2010). 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.; [In re:] R.I.S., … 36 A.3d 567, 572
([Pa.] 2011) (plurality opinion)[]. As has been often stated, an
abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing
court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see also
Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., … 34 A.3d 1, 51
([Pa.] 2011); Christianson v. Ely, … 838 A.2d 630, 634 ([Pa.]
2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of
discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for applying an
abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We
observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not
equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold
record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the
relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., … 9 A.3d at
1190. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite
result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases,
an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial
court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment;
instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual
findings are supported by the record and the court’s legal
conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of
discretion. In re Adoption of Atencio, … 650 A.2d 1064, 1066
([Pa.] 1994).
In re C.M.C., 140 A.3d at 704.
Furthermore, the In re C.M.C. decision set forth the following in regard
to a revocation of consent to adoption in connection with a voluntary
relinquishment of parental rights:
-7-
J-S80001-18
When reviewing a decree entered by the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt, this
Court must determine whether the record is free from legal error
and the court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence.
Because the [o]phans’ [c]ourt sits as the fact-finder, it determines
the credibility of the witnesses, and on review, we will not reverse
its credibility determinations absent an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 705 (quoting In re K.G.M., 845 A.2d 861, 863 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
Accordingly, we conclude that these provisions apply to the present situation.
Initially, we note that Adoptive Parents’ argument section of their brief
discusses the issues they have raised in a different order than the issues as
they are listed in their statement of questions involved. We will address the
issues in the order that they are presented in Adoptive Parents’ argument
section of their brief.
Therefore, we begin with Adoptive Parents’ contention that the court
erred by characterizing Birth Mother’s letter/petition sent to the court as a
request for enforcement of the PACA rather than a modification when asking
that Adoptive Father not be present at the visits and that a social worker or
mediator attend. Adoptive Parents cite the following pertinent sections of the
Adoption Act:
§ 2737. Modification of agreement
(a) General rule.—Only the adoptive parent or a child who is
12 years of age or older may seek to modify an agreement by
filing an action in the court that finalized the adoption.
...
§ 2738. Enforcement of agreement
-8-
J-S80001-18
(a) General rule.—Any party to an agreement, a sibling or a
child who is the subject of an agreement may seek to enforce an
agreement by filing an action in the court that finalized the
adoption.
(b) Remedies.—Any party to an agreement, a sibling or a child
who is the subject of an agreement may request only specific
performance in seeking to enforce an agreement and may not
request monetary damages or modification of an agreement.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2737(a) and § 2738(a), (b).
With reliance on these sections of the Act, Adoptive Parents argue that
Birth Mother’s letter/petition requested modification, not enforcement, of the
PACA, and that Birth Mother did not have standing to request modification.
Rather, they contend that only they may request modification of the PACA.
Moreover, Adoptive Parents point out that although a pro se litigant’s filings
shall be liberally construed, Birth Mother “is not entitled to any particular
advantage because she lacks legal training.” Adoptive Parents’ brief at 19
(citing O’Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa. Super.
1989)). Adoptive Parents also assert that “any layperson choosing to
represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent,
assume the risk that [her] lack of expertise and legal training will prove [her]
undoing.” Id. (citing Vann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985)).2
____________________________________________
2 Although Birth Mother wrote the letter/petition sent to the trial court herself
without the aid of counsel, she was represented by counsel at the August 8,
2018 hearing and throughout this appeal. However, during the negotiations
relating to the creation of the PACA, she was acting pro se.
-9-
J-S80001-18
In response, Birth Mother asserts that Orphans’ Court Rule 1.2 (O.C.R.)
directs that the applicable rules “shall be liberally construed to secure the just,
timely and efficient determination of every action or proceeding to which they
are applicable” and that “[t]he court at every stage of any action or proceeding
may disregard any error or defect of procedure that does not affect the
substantive rights of the parties in interest.” Based on this language, Birth
Mother contends that the court “liberally construed Birth Mother’s letter as a
pleading seeking enforcement of the PACA regardless of Birth Mother’s choice
of the word ‘modify.’” Birth Mother’s brief at 6. Moreover, Birth Mother
identifies the following language from the PACA upon which she contends she
reasonably relied:
The Parties hereby understand and acknowledge that they may
have a right pursuant to the Adoption Act, to seek to modify,
enforce, and/or discontinue this Agreement. Such rights are as
set forth in the Adoption Act of Pennsylvania. Should any Party
make a request to the court to modify or enforce this Agreement,
then any changes made or approved by the [c]ourt in response,
would thereafter also be legally enforceable.
PACA at § B.2.
Essentially, Birth Mother believes that she had the right to request that
the court assist her and require the Adoptive Parents to comply with the
dictates of the PACA. She also directs this Court’s attention to the absence of
an objection raised by Adoptive Parents to Birth Mother’s standing, an issue
that they never raised below. Therefore, Birth Mother claims that Adoptive
Parents waived this issue.
- 10 -
J-S80001-18
With regard to the sole remedy of specific performance, Birth Mother
contends that her letter/petition centered on Adoptive Father’s actions at the
April 29, 2018 visit. Therefore, she claims that the thrust of her description
of what occurred at the visit supported her request to the court for specific
performance of the PACA by requiring that Adoptive Father not attend future
visits or require a third party to attend the visits or that Adoptive Parents be
required to act appropriately. Lastly, Birth Mother asserts that she was not
asking that the language of the PACA be changed, only that the Adoptive
Parents’ actions be in compliance with the PACA as written.
Following our review of the record in this case, we first conclude that
Adoptive Parents waived this issue in that they did not object to Birth Mother’s
standing in the court below. See Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“Issues not raised in the
lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Even if waiver is not the outcome as to this issue, Adoptive Parents’ position
does not convince us that the court erred in its determination that Birth Mother
was requesting enforcement, not modification. The single use of the word
“modify” in Birth Mother’s letter/petition does not override the three-page
description of what occurred at the visit. Moreover, within the bounds of our
standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
or err as a matter of law in its interpretation of the letter/petition, particularly,
after hearing testimony at the August 8, 2018 hearing. It is evident that the
court’s order was an attempt to require Adoptive Parents to comply with the
- 11 -
J-S80001-18
PACA, which the parties had entered into voluntarily. Adoptive Parents are
not entitled to relief pursuant to this argument.
Adoptive Parents’ next issue centers on the trial court’s determination
that the next visit must include a neutral third party to supervise the actions
of the parties. Again, Adoptive Parents contend that the court order requiring
the presence of a third party to supervise the visit was requested by Birth
Mother and results in a modification of the PACA that can only be requested
by them. This argument mirrors Adoptive Parents’ position presented in the
first issue, that Birth Mother cannot request a modification. Having concluded
that the court did not err by finding that Birth Mother was requesting
enforcement, we determine that this argument does not provide them with
relief.
Additionally, the court heard testimony from the parties and found that
Adoptive Father’s responses to questions posed to him were evasive. TCO at
5. Specifically, the court explained that “[g]iven the evasive and unfounded
nature of [Adoptive Father’s] responses, this [c]ourt felt it was necessary to
spell out what is to occur during these visits to avoid the parties returning to
court again.” Id. This statement explains the basis for the court’s credibility
determinations and is clearly supported by the evidence of record. Therefore,
we conclude that the court had the discretion to order supervision of the next
visit for the best interest of Child. Moreover, the language of the PACA does
not prohibit such action.
- 12 -
J-S80001-18
Adoptive Parents’ final argument centers on the court’s determination
that the visits between Birth Mother and Child would include “touching” when
the PACA did not specify that this conduct was allowed. To support their
position, Adoptive Parents contend that contract principles apply and that to
interpret the language of the PACA, “the intention of the parties is a
paramount consideration.” Adoptive Parents’ brief at 23 (quoting Profit Wize
Marketing v. Wiest, 812 A.2d 1270, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2002)). They also
note that words in a contract, if not defined, are to be “construe[d] in
accordance with their natural, plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 24 (quoting
Codero v. Potomac Ins. Co., 794 A.2d 897, 900 (Pa. Super. 2002)).
Moreover, they argue that a court can “not modify the plain meaning of words
under the guise of interpretation….” Id. (citing Meeting House Lane, Ltd.
V. Melso, 628 A.2d 854, 857 (Pa. Super. 1993)).
Relying on this caselaw, Adoptive Parents contend that when the parties
negotiated the terms of the PACA, they could include the terms they desired
with appropriate definitions. Although they acknowledge that the parties did
not define the term visit, they did not contemplate that the visits would include
touching. Adoptive Parents’ discussion then provides definitions of the term
“visit,” explaining it means to see a person or thing. Based on this definition,
they argue that the court did not merely interpret the term “visit,” but
modified its meaning to include “touching,” which they contend interferes with
their personal choice in matters of family life and their decision relating to the
- 13 -
J-S80001-18
protection and safety of their child. Thus, Adoptive Parents assert that the
trial court abused its discretion by defining the term “visit” to include touching.
We disagree. As noted previously, the court found that although the
PACA did not include the specific term touching, “such interaction is implicit in
the agreement given that the behavior was acceptable prior to the PACA and
both [Adoptive Parents] and [B]irth [M]other agreed, by signing this PACA,
that it was in [] ‘[C]hild’s best interest to have an ongoing relationship with
[B]irth [M]other.’” TCO at 5-6. We conclude that this interpretation of the
language of the PACA is reasonable and that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering that touching was to be considered a part of the visits.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/19
- 14 -