Full Opinion

J-S34031-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.S., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: A.B., FATHER : : : : : : No. 707 WDA 2026 Appeal from the Decree Entered April 27, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Orphans’ Court at No: 3015-2025 BEFORE: KING, J., NEUMAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: October 27, 2026 A.B. (Father) appeals from the decree which granted the petition filed by R.F. (Stepfather) and terminated Father’s parental rights to A.S. (Child). We affirm. Child was born in November 2019 to Father and S.F. (Mother). Notably, [Child] has lived with [Stepfather] and Mother since shortly after birth. [Stepfather] has, for all intents and purposes, functioned in the capacity as the father of Child from birth and has bonded with Child as such. In the early stages Child’s life, Father was intermittently present, engaged in some limited, short visits, and occasionally dropped off baby food for Child. When Child was around two and a half years old, Father filed a custody action in Northumberland County. After a later Review Hearing, Mother was granted sole legal custody and primary physical custody, while Father was granted supervised overnight visitation every other weekend. Separately, child support was granted through a Domestic Relations Order, but Father has only made two payments and is in arrears to a sum of over $5000. Father maintained sporadic visitation after the custody arrangement, roughly five to six visits, up until Easter of 2022, after which Father ceased contact. Following this last visit, Father was in J-S34031-26 various states of legal trouble, including becoming incarcerated, being released, and then incarcerated again shortly after. This state of affairs continued up until and during the filing of the [termination] Petition. The only further contact Father made was through a 202[4] letter sent to Mother but addressed to Child, which Mother and [Stepfather] ultimately decided not to give to Child [due to their concerns about how the letter would impact Child]. Orphans’ Court Opinion (OCO), 6/17/26, at 2 (footnotes omitted). On July 1, 2025, Stepfather filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights, along with a petition to adopt Child.1 On April 17, 2026, the orphans’ court appointed counsel (Legal Counsel) to represent Child’s preferences, and a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent Child’s best interests. The termination hearing was held on April 27, 2026. The court heard testimony from Stepfather, Mother, and Father. Stepfather testified that he married Mother in June 2020 but has “been in [Child’s] life since she was born.” N.T., 4/27/26, at 8, 18. He explained that he and Mother “were together” when Mother brought Child home from the hospital in November of 2019. Id. at 8. Stepfather stated that he has loved and provided for Child her entire life. Id. at 9. He described Child as “my daughter” and his relationship with Child as “very close.” Id. at 16. In response to questioning from Father’s counsel, Stepfather acknowledged that Father was incarcerated for most of the previous four ____________________________________________ 1 The termination proceedings were delayed for several months because initial attempts to serve Father were unsuccessful. See N.T., 4/27/26, at 33, 60, 110-11. -2- J-S34031-26 years, and that neither he nor Mother “facilitated a visit” between Child and Father in jail.2 Id. at 23-24. Stepfather stated that he and Mother were “not comfortable bringing [Child] to a jail.” Id. at 29. He explained that he “always wanted [Child] to live a life that was stable and happy, and I think visitations in jail don’t scream stability to me.” Id. at 37. Stepfather confirmed that he and Mother did not read Child a letter that Father sent “right after [Child’s] fifth birthday.” Id. at 35. He stated, it was something that I think would have done nothing but confuse [Child] and bother her, in the sense of not being sure what we’re talking about, and at that point, we weren’t sure even how long his incarceration was. Like, to introduce that to her, it just didn’t seem like it was worth reading the letter. Id. Mother testified that at the time of hearing Child was six years old and had seen Father “a handful” of times. Id. at 47. She stated that Father last saw Child “the weekend before Easter of 2022” when Child was two years old. Id. at 52, 67. Mother explained that she did not attempt to arrange visits or phone calls between Child and Father because Father “was on the run with warrants, and then he was incarcerated.” Id. at 60. According to Mother, Child did not know Father, and had “a very, very good relationship” with Stepfather. Id. at 47. ____________________________________________ 2 Stepfather also acknowledged that Father had custodial visits with Child on three occasions in 2022 when he was not incarcerated, but stated that “the supervisor fell through, and … we had an appointment to get a new supervisor established, and at that point, [Father] did not show up to [his] trial [and] warrants were out for [his] arrest.” Id. at 24-25. -3- J-S34031-26 Father testified that after Child was born, he “reached out [with] messages and stuff.” Id. at 75. He stated that he initiated a custody action “about the end of 2021” and “ended up getting, like, a day every other weekend, and then after that, it went to an overnight.” Id. at 75-76. However, Father conceded that he was incarcerated after “five or six” visits. Id. at 81. He confirmed he was incarcerated from “April or May of 2022 until 2025,” and again in December of 2025 through the time of the termination hearing.3 Id. at 78. Father also confirmed that he last saw Child in 2022. Id. at 89. Father maintained he could “provide care for [Child] if [given] the opportunity.” Id. at 89. He emphasized that he had “reached out [with] messages trying to be able to see her, to know about her wellbeing, and I’ve gotten no response.” Id. at 91. Father said, “I love her unconditionally. I would do as much as I possibly can for that little girl and love and care for her as much as I possibly could.” Id. at 116. After the witnesses testified, Legal Counsel advised that Child “is only six” and unable “appreciate the weight” of the termination proceedings. Id. at 125. Nonetheless, Legal Counsel was “able to garner from [Child] who she sees as her father, and that is [Stepfather].” Id. at 126. Next, the GAL advised: [E]very aspect of [Chld’s] life in my investigation shows that she is a bright, intelligent, well-cared for six-year-old girl. Her teacher, when I spoke with her, was very, very supportive of her ____________________________________________ 3 Father testified that he was “not sure” how long he would be incarcerated because he was “going to trial next month.” Id. at 96. -4- J-S34031-26 and everything she does and how she’s a leader in the classroom. And everything I can see about this little girl’s life is positive. … I can see no real benefit to having [F]ather’s paternity continue. Everything [F]ather identified as to what a father is and should be to a child are things that he had not been able to achieve, and I don’t believe on behalf of [Child that] it was the fault of Mother or Stepfather that he was … not able to fulfill his own definition of a father. I believe it was because of his life choices. And sometimes you make life choices without realizing the consequences. So at this point, I’m faced with the testimony from [F]ather as well as my own knowledge of criminal courts as a criminal court practitioner for over 30 years. [F]ather’s whereabouts for the next year, or at least to the end of this year is going to be incarceration for the most part, and it might be beyond that. … I would hope [F]ather has every success in life, but at this point, it’s not so much [F]ather’s feelings and … desires and whatever obstacles have been put in front [him in] determin[ing] what is in the best interests of [C]hild. And this six-year-old girl does not need the trauma or confusion or the difficulties … that not granting the termination would entail. Id. at 128-30. The GAL concluded “the best interests of [Child] would be for the parental termination to be granted.” Id. at 131. After hearing from counsel, the orphans’ court announced its decision on the record. The court remarked that “there’s been a lot of talk about barriers and obstacles” and “most, if not all, of the obstacles and barriers are the result of [Father’s] situation.” Id. at 135-36. The court also stated that Stepfather and Mother “are kind of an open book.” Id. at 136. In conclusion, the court found, “the evidence in this case is clear and convincing [that Father] has failed [to perform parental duties] and it is in [Child’s] best interests that she be adopted. So I’m going to grant the petition for termination.” Id. -5- J-S34031-26 On April 27, 2026, the orphans’ court entered a written decree granting Stepfather’s petition and terminating Father’s parental rights. See Order, 4/27/26 (stating Father “failed to perform parental duties for 4 years” and finding “no credible evidence that [Stepfather and Mother] prevented [Father] from having contact with [Child]”). On May 22, 2026, Father filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father raises the following issues for review: I. The [orphans’ c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in terminating [Father’s] parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a), where the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that [Father] evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim or refused or failed to perform parental duties, as [Father] presented credible testimony and evidence demonstrating that [Stepfather]/Mother engaged in a sustained course of conduct interfering with his ability to perform parental duties and maintain a relationship with [C]hild for a period of approximately four (4) years. II. The [orphans’ c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in terminating [Father’s] parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a), where the [orphans’ c]ourt’s finding that there was “no credible evidence” that [Stepfather]/Mother prevented [Father] from having contact with [C]hild was against the weight of the evidence, including Mother’s own testimony at the evidentiary hearing admitting that she prevented [C]hild from having a relationship with Father. Father’s Brief at 9. We review the termination of parental rights for an abuse of discretion, which is limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by competent evidence. In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). -6- J-S34031-26 Appellate courts must accept the orphans’ court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record. See Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021). Pertinently, appellate courts must employ an abuse of discretion standard of review, as we are not in a position to make the close calls based on fact-specific determinations. ... Even if an appellate court would have made a different conclusion based on the cold record, we are not in a position to reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the [orphans’] court. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) Termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. The orphans’ court must first consider the parent’s conduct and the grounds for termination enumerated in Section 2511(a). If the court finds clear and convincing evidence of grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must then assess the child’s needs and welfare under Section 2511(b). This Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), in addition to Section 2511(b), to affirm the termination of parental rights. In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 705 (Pa. Super. 2021). Here, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights under subsection 2511(a)(1), which provides for termination when: (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. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1). -7- J-S34031-26 In both of his issues, Father claims that the evidence does not support the orphans’ court’s finding that he failed to perform parental duties. 4 In his first issue, Father asserts that he “presented credible testimony and evidence demonstrating that Petitioner/Mother engaged in a sustained course of conduct interfering with his ability to perform parental duties.” Father’s Brief at 13. In his second issue, Father assails the court’s “finding that there was ‘no credible evidence’ that Petitioner/Mother prevented [Father] from having contact with [C]hild.” Id. at 19. Father maintains that the court’s finding “was against the weight of the evidence, including Mother’s own testimony at the evidentiary hearing admitting that she prevented [C]hild from having a relationship with Father.” Id. Father’s claims are not persuasive. As the orphans’ court explains: Both of Father’s raised issues stem from his belief that Mother and [Stepfather] were taking actions to prevent his contact with Child. Specifically, that he had attempted to reach out through letters, social media, and through other family members and that Mother was largely unresponsive. Mother, on the other hand, did testify that she had been unwilling to take Child to the prison for visitations with Father and that she and [Stepfather] had decided against giving the sole letter that they received from Father for the Child to the Child in light of their concerns for the well-being and stability of Child. *** Here, the [c]ourt is unconvinced that Father exercised reasonable firmness in overcoming the perceived barriers created by Mother ____________________________________________ 4 Stepfather, Legal Counsel, and the GAL argue that the termination decree should be affirmed. See generally, Stepfather’s Brief at 2-14; Legal Counsel’s correspondence, 8/10/26, at 1-2, and the GAL’s Brief at 12-24. -8- J-S34031-26 and [Stepfather]. Moreover, it is the [c]ourt’s belief that the greatest barrier between Father and Child’s relationship is Father’s inability to refrain from criminal activity, as evidenced by the short three-month period between his release and re-confinement on new charges. The [c]ourt recognizes the actions taken by the [Stepfather] and Mother created a level of difficulty, but such barriers were not in any way insurmountable. This [c]ourt found persuasive Father’s failure to take any affirmative actions to reestablish connection with Child, both during his incarceration and brief release. Specifically, Father could have and should have reached out to the Northumberland Custody Court by letter or through pro se filing to seek video visitation. Father should also have sought modification and enforcement of the already in place Custody Order upon his release. However, he took neither action despite there being no interference by Mother or [Stepfather] to prevent him from doing so. For these reasons, the [c]ourt cannot excuse Father’s general absence from Child’s life for the required six-month time period and beyond. OCO at 4-5. The record supports the orphans’ court’s determination that Father failed to perform parental duties for a period well in excess of the six-month period set forth in subsection 2511(a)(1).5 Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights. Decree affirmed. ____________________________________________ 5 Although Father does not challenge the termination of his rights under Section 2511(b), we conclude that the record also supports the court’s finding that termination serves Child’s needs and welfare. The court relied on the GAL’s report in finding “no bond between Father and Child[, who] does not know who Father is, and sees [Stepfather] as her father.” OCO at 5. The court further found that termination “would serve to enforce the lived-in reality that Child currently experiences through her relationship with [Stepfather] and properly align her legal status with said reality.” Id. at 6. -9- J-S34031-26 DATE: 10/27/2026 - 10 -