In re C.E.D.H., a Minor

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviews an appeal concerning the denial of a petition to involuntarily terminate a biological father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1). The court holds that the child, through separate counsel and a guardian ad litem, had an independent interest and that the orphans’ court erred by refusing to consider termination based on the adoptive parents’ concession. The court also addresses when the six-month period for evaluating a parent’s conduct begins and reverses and remands for entry of an order terminating the father’s parental rights.

Holdings

1. Adoptive Parents’ concession of an argument supporting termination under Section 2511(a)(1) was not binding on the Child, who had independent legal interests and separate representation. The orphans’ court erred by refusing to consider the Child’s arguments supporting termination.
2. For purposes of Section 2511(a)(1), the relevant six-month period does not necessarily begin when paternity is conclusively established. It begins, in light of the circumstances and parental-duty standard, when the father knew or should have known of the child’s existence and the possibility that he was the child’s father.
3. Clear and convincing evidence established that Father, during the relevant six-month period, either evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim or refused or failed to perform parental duties.
4. The record supported termination under Section 2511(b), and remand for a separate additional Section 2511(b) analysis was unnecessary because there was no evidence of a bond between Father and the Child and the evidence showed that the Child was integrated into Adoptive Parents’ family.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the orphans’ court erred by refusing to consider termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) because Adoptive Parents conceded that ground in post-hearing briefing, despite the Child’s independent position and arguments in favor of termination.
2. Whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion or erred as a matter of law by measuring the six-month period under Section 2511(a)(1) from confirmation of paternity rather than from when Father knew or should have known of the Child’s existence and the possibility that he was the father.
3. Whether the record established by clear and convincing evidence that Father evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim or refused or failed to perform parental duties, and whether termination was supported under Section 2511(b).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded