In Re: Invol. Term. of Parental Rights to: A.G.H. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A01002-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: INVOL. TERM. OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: A.G.H. APPEAL OF: K.D.H., MOTHER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1150 MDA 2021 Appeal from the Decree Entered August 2, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2020-4487 A BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: MARCH 11, 2022 K.D.H. (Mother) appeals from the decree, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, terminating her parental rights to A.G.H. (Child) (born 9/15) pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act.1 After our review, we affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable Katherine V. Oliver. Both Mother and R.L. (Father) were incarcerated when Child was born. Maternal grandparents cared for Child while both parents were incarcerated, and Father was released from incarceration shortly after Child was born. Mother and Father agreed that Father would have custody of Child every weekend, but in spring of 2016, Father filed for and received emergency custody of Child based on his concern that Mother was using drugs and Father ____________________________________________ 1 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938. J-A01002-22 was unable to reach her. Mother did not attend the emergency hearing because she was incarcerated again.2 On April 19, 2016, Father was awarded sole custody of Child, and Mother was awarded shared legal custody and informed of her right to seek modification of the custody order. At that time, Child was eight months old. In April 2020, Mother was released from jail; she had been incarcerated for twenty-two months and had not seen Child since April 2016. In July 2020, when Child was five years old, Father filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child. Father asserted Child has lived with him and his wife (Stepmother), whom Child refers to as “Mom,” and they have met all of child’s physical, emotional, financial, medical, and educational needs. The court held a hearing on June 14, 2021,3 after which it terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child, finding: Father met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother failed to perform parental duties for Child for a period of at least six months preceding the filing of Father’s petition in July 2020; Child does not know Mother, or have any recollection of her; Child looks to Stepmother as her mother and Stepmother sees Child as ____________________________________________ In April 2016, Mother was incarcerated for twenty-two months for driving under the influence (DUI). Mother was released in 2018, but she was incarcerated again in 2019 for approximately seven months in relation to another DUI charge. Mother was ultimately released from jail in April 2020. 2 The court appointed Justin Miller, Esquire, as counsel for Child. See In re: Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 180 (Pa. 2017). 3 -2- J-A01002-22 her own daughter; a strong bond exists between Father and Child, and between Stepmother and Child; Stepmother would like to proceed with adoption and adoption by Stepmother is in Child’s best interests. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/2/21, at 5-9. On appeal, Mother argues the court erred in terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(1)4 “despite Mother’s efforts to maintain a parent-child relationship in the face of obstacles placed in her path by Father.” Appellant’s Brief, at 4. Mother contends Father changed his address twice without notifying her, blocked her from contacting him or his wife on Facebook Messenger, and did not respond to her calls. Id. at 12-13. Mother claims the court weighed too heavily the fact that she never petitioned to modify custody. Id. at 13. In cases involving termination of parental rights, “our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by ____________________________________________ 4 Section 2511(a)(1) provides: (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. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1). -3- J-A01002-22 competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa. Super. 2009)). “Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Judge Oliver has comprehensively set forth the reasoning supporting her decree, and we find no error or abuse of discretion.5 B.L.W., supra. Accordingly, we affirm the decree based on Judge Oliver’s opinion and instruct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings. Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/11/2022 ____________________________________________ With respect to Mother’s claim that Father created barriers that impeded her ability to contact Child, the court acknowledged Father’s unwillingness to help Mother, but found Mother presented no evidence that she tried to locate Father and that she “did not utilize all resources available to her[.]” Trial Court Opinion, supra at 7. In particular, the court found “Mother knew how to go about petitioning the court to establish custody rights, and that she had done so in a pro se capacity in the past vis a vis her other children.” Id. 5 -4- Circulated 03/08/2022 02:32 PM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
