J-S18017-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.F.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: R.L.H., MOTHER : : : : : No. 36 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered November 26, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 062-2024

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: August 27, 2025 R.L.H. (Mother) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to M.F.H. (Child).1 On appeal, Mother argues that T.J.H. (Father) and O.A.H. (Stepmother) (collectively, “Petitioners”) failed to establish grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. Mother also claims that the orphans’ court erred by excluding evidence of Father’s past conduct. We affirm.

The orphans’ court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter as follows:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

J-S18017-25

Mother and Father had separated approximately two months before the birth of [] Child. Mother had suffered a traumatic event when another child of hers was tragically killed.[2] Almost immediately following [] Child’s birth, Father filed a complaint for custody in September 2022. The current custody order between the parties has been in place since [December 13, 20223], with Father maintaining primary physical custody [and sole legal custody]. At that time, and since that point, Mother [was] allotted supervised partial physical custody with supervision to be provided by a licensed agency.

Orphans’ Ct. Op., 2/14/25, at 2.

On July 3, 2024, Petitioners filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) of the Adoption Act.4 The orphans’ court conducted a hearing on the petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights November 7, 2024. Mother appeared at the hearing with counsel. Child was represented by Patricia Elliott-Rentler, Esq., who served both as Child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) and as Child’s legal counsel.5 ____________________________________________

4 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.

-2- J-S18017-25

The orphans’ court summarized the evidence presented at the termination of parental rights hearing (TPR hearing) as follows: Mother has not taken advantage of [the custody order’s provision] for supervised partial physical custody; it is reported by Father that Mother has not seen [] Child since December 2022 when [] Child was only six months old.[6] Mother’s testimony indicated that she was able to obtain some financial support that she was planning to allocate to pay for periods of supervised custody, but the majority of those funds were put toward supervised custody scheduling with [] Child’s sibling. According to Father’s testimony, Mother has sporadically contacted him to ask if she can provide ____________________________________________

termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, where there is no conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an attorney-guardian ad litem representing the child’s best interests can also represent the child’s legal interests.” In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018). Therefore, before appointing the GAL to also serve as a child’s legal counsel, a trial court must “make [a] determination” that “counsel does not have a conflict representing the child’s best and legal interests[.]” K.M.G., 240 A.3d at 1236-37.

As stated above, the orphans’ court appointed Attorney Elliott-Rentler as Child’s GAL. See Order Appointing Legal Counsel, 8/26/24. At the TPR hearing, Attorney Elliott-Rentler noted on the record that there was no conflict between Child’s best and legal interests, and the orphans’ court responded “Okay.” N.T., 11/7/24, at 3-4. Therefore, we are constrained to conclude that the orphans’ court’s one word reply to GAL, was not an on-the-record determination that Attorney Elliott-Rentler could represent Child’s best interests and legal interests without conflict. See, e.g., K.M.G., 240 A.3d at 1236-37; In re A.C.M., 333 A.3d 704, 708 (Pa. Super. 2025) (vacating the decree terminating parental rights where the orphans’ court delegated the responsibility to determine if a conflict existed to counsel). However, our Supreme Court has recognized that there is a presumption that there is no conflict between a child’s best interests and legal interest when a child is too young to articulate a preference in the outcome of the proceedings. T.S., 192 A.3d at 1088-90. Because Child was only two years and five months old at the time of the termination hearing, we conclude that the presumption of no- conflict from T.S. applies. See id. Mother acknowledged that she last had contact with Child during a period of supervised physical custody on December 27, 2022 when Child was six months old. See N.T., 11/7/24, at 6-7, 9-10, 13.

-3- J-S18017-25

formula or other items — even after [] Child was developmentally beyond such needs.

Father testified that Stepmother has shared in performing the parental duties for [] Child with him in Mother’s absence. Father and Stepmother believe they are in the best position to care for [] Child’s special needs, as she has a cyst on her pituitary gland. [] Child identifies Stepmother as her mother; it is unclear if [] Child would recognize Mother, since her last in-person contact with [] Child would have been over two years ago.

Orphans’ Ct. Op., 2/14/25, at 2-3.

We add that Father testified that he has denied Mother’s requests to see Child outside of a supervised visitation setting because that is not permitted under the custody order. See N.T., 11/7/24, at 20, 36. Father testified that when Child was born, he and Mother shared childcare responsibilities equally.

See id. at 29. Father denied ever physically abusing Mother. See id. at 28- 29.

Stepmother testified that she has assisted Father with caring for Child since she began dating Father, which was when Child was about four months old.7 See id. at 43. Stepmother further explained that she and Father share parental responsibilities equally. See id. at 43-44, 48. Stepmother testified that she has a strong bond with Child, who calls Stepmother “mommy” and “momma.” See id. at 43, 46. Further, Child follows Stepmother around and mimics Stepmother. See id. at 46. Stepmother stated that she does not treat Child any differently than her biological child. See id.

____________________________________________

-4- J-S18017-25

Petitioners explained that Child has had multiple doctor’s visits to monitor the growth of the cyst on her pituitary gland including visits to an endocrinologist and a neurologist every three to six months. See id. at 22- 23, 28, 31, 44-45, 49.

Mother testified that when Child was born, she performed nearly all parental duties and that Father performed almost no parental duties because he was constantly away from home. See id. at 55, 58-60, 74-75. Mother stated that when Child was born, doctors told her that Child has a cyst on her pituitary gland but “it was nothing to worry about. That it would not cause any problems or like anything[.]” Id. at 66. Mother explained that she last had supervised visitation with Child on December 27, 2022. See id. at 6-7, 9-10, 13, 69.

Mother explained that she asked Father to see Child “countless times” outside of a supervised visitation setting but Father denied her requests. Id. at 70. Mother also testified that she cannot afford to pay for supervised visitation sessions with Child and she has been unable to obtain financial assistance for the visitation except for a grant of $2,000 that went to the agency supervising her visitation with her other child. See id. at 10, 57-58, 68, 72, 77-79. Mother’s counsel asked Mother if Father had ever been physically abusive towards her. See id. at 62-63. Petitioners’ counsel objected to the relevance of the question, and Mother’s counsel responded that it was relevant to Child living with Father. See id. The orphans’ court sustained the objection. See id. Lastly, Mother claimed that that the court -5- J-S18017-25

system had failed her and Child because the courts favor “bad people” and “psychos” over “perfectly sane and normal people and parents.” Id. at 81.

On November 26, 2024, the orphans’ court filed an order granting the petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b). Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, and both the orphans’ court and Mother complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On appeal, Mother presents the four issues, which we reorder as follows: 1. Whether the [orphans’] court erred by not allowing Mother to introduce evidence of past and present conduct of Father as it impacts the best interests of [] Child.

2. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioners] met [their] burden as to terminating the parental rights of Mother under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1).

3. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioners] met [their] burden as to terminating the parental rights of Mother under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2).

4. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that [Petitioners] met [their] burden under Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) that the best interests of [] Child are met by terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Mother’s Brief at 4-5 (some formatting altered).8 ____________________________________________

-6- J-S18017-25

Exclusion of Evidence In her first issue, Mother argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of Father’s past conduct. Mother’s Brief at 23-25. Specifically, Mother contends that the orphans’ court should have admitted evidence of Father’s past physical and emotional abuse of Mother.

Id. at 24. Mother claims that this evidence is relevant to Child’s health, safety, welfare, and best interests in Father’s home. Id. at 24-25.

Before we address the merits of this issue, we must first determine if Mother has preserved it for appeal. This Court may raise this issue of waiver sua sponte. See Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. Super. 2007). “The issue of waiver presents a question of law, and, as such, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Trigg v. Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260, 269 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted).

Issues that are not raised in an appellant’s concise statement are waived on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (providing that issues not included in a Rule 1925 concise statement are waived); see also Dietrich v. Dietrich, 923 A.2d 461, 463 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Further, this Court has stated that a concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no concise statement at all.

* * *

-7- J-S18017-25

When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review. When an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.

* * * In essence, the purpose of requiring a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is to allow the trial court to easily discern the issues an appellant intends to pursue on appeal and to allow the court to file an intelligent response to those issues in an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

S.S. v. T.J., 212 A.3d 1026, 1031-32 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted and formatting altered).

Here, in her Rule 1925(b) statement, Mother claimed that the orphans’ court “erred by not allowing Mother to introduce evidence of past and present conduct of Father as it impacts the best interests of [] Child.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 12/24/24, at ¶4.

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the orphans’ court discussed its decision to allow Mother, over Petitioners’ objection, to present evidence regarding Father’s role in childcare prior to the parents’ separation. See Orphans’ Ct. Op., 2/14/25, at 5. The orphans’ court did not discuss its decision to exclude Mother’s testimony about Father’s alleged past physical abuse of Mother at all in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Therefore, we conclude that Mother’s Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague to identify her claim that the orphans’ court erred by excluding evidence regarding Father’s alleged past physical abuse.

See S.S., 212 A.3d at 1031-32. Accordingly, this issue is waived.

-8- J-S18017-25

Termination of Parental Rights In her remaining issues, Mother argues that the orphans’ court erred by terminating her parental rights. Mother’s Brief at 13-23.

We begin with our well-settled standard of review: The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

In re H.H.N., 296 A.3d 1258, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citations omitted); see also In re Q.R.D., 214 A.3d 233, 239 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explaining that “the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence” (citation omitted and some formatting altered)).

Termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the Adoption Act. Subsection (a) provides eleven enumerated grounds describing particular conduct of a parent which would warrant involuntary termination. In evaluating whether the petitioner proved grounds under § 2511(a), the trial court must focus on the parent’s conduct and avoid using a balancing or best interest approach. If the trial court determines the petitioner established grounds for termination under § 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court then must assess the petition under § 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare.

In re M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 830 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations omitted and some -9- J-S18017-25

formatting altered); see also Q.R.D., 214 A.3d at 239 (explaining that if “the court determines the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, the court then engages 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” (citation omitted and formatting altered)).

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the orphans’ court thoroughly explained its reasons for terminating Mother’s parental rights and its conclusion that termination was in Children’s best interests. See Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 2-6.

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, and the orphans’ court’s well-reasoned analysis, we affirm on the basis of the orphans’ court’s opinion. Specifically, we agree with the orphans’ court that termination of Mother’s parental rights was warranted under Section 2511(a)(1). See id. at 3-4, 6. Further, we agree with the orphans’ court’s conclusion that termination was in Child’s best interest pursuant to Section 2511(b). See Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 5-6. Additionally, we conclude that Petitioners presented clear and convincing evidence in support of termination and the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. See H.H.N., 296 A.3d at 1263. Mother is not entitled to relief on her remaining claims. Accordingly, we affirm.9 ____________________________________________

- 10 - J-S18017-25

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 08/27/2025

- 11 - Circulated 07/29/2025 Circulated 07/29/2025 02:54 02:54 PM PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

IN IN RE: RE: )) ADOPTION OF: )) )) MILA MILA FAYE FAYE HARRISON, HARRISON, )) No. No. 62 of 2024 of2024 ))

PURSUANT PURSUANT TO TO APPELLATE APPELLATE PROCEDURE PROCEDURE RULE RULE 1925(a) 1925(a) ORDER ORDER OF OF COURT COURT

This This matter matter was was scheduled scheduled before before the the Court Court on on aa Petition Petition for for Involuntary Involuntary Termination Termination of of Parental Parental Rights Rights under under 23 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 251 1, filed 2511, filed by by Tyler Tyler Harrison, Harrison, (hereinafter (hereinafter “Father”) "Father") on on July July 3, 3, 2024.

2024. Father Father sought sought to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate terminate the the parental parental rights rights of of birth birth mother mother Rhiannon Rhiannon Leigh Leigh Heckman Heckman (hereinafter (hereinafter“Mother”) "Mother") so so that thatthe thechild, child, Mila MilaFaye FayeHarrison Harrison (hereinafter (hereinafter“Child”), "Child), could couldbe be adopted adoptedby byhis his wife, wife, Olivia OliviaMichel Michel (hereinafter (hereinafter“Stepmother”), "Stepmother"), in inorder ordertoto create create an anintact intact nuclear nuclear family. family. The The hearing hearing on on Father’s Father's Petition Petition took took place place on on November November 7,7, 2024.

2024. Petitioners Petitioners Father Father and and Stepmother Stepmotherwere wererepresented representedby by Ashley AshleyLovelace, Lovelace, Esq., Esq., while whileMother Motherappeared appeared along along with withher her counsel, counsel, Randall Randall Klimchock, Klimchock, Esq.

Esq. Patricia PatriciaElliott-Rentler, Elliott-Rentler, Esq., Esq.. appeared appearedin inthe thedual dualrole role as as the the Child’s Child's Guardian Guardian ad adLitem Litem and and the the attorney attorney toto represent representthe the Child’s Child's legal legal interests. interests. Based Based upon upon the the Child’s Child's age age and and maturity, maturity, itit was was determined determined that that Attorney Attorney Elliott-Rentler Elliott-Rentler isis able able toto perform performboth bothfunctions functionsfor forthe theChild.

Child.

After After careful careful consideration consideration of of the the evidence evidence presented presented atat the the hearing, hearing, the the Petition Petition toto Involuntarily InvoluntarilyTerminate Terminatethe theParental ParentalRights RightsasastotoMother Motherwas wasgranted grantedbased basedupon uponthe thefindings findingsof of fact factand andapplicable applicablelaw. law.

The relevant portions of Section 2511, establishing the grounds under which a court may terminate tenninate parental rights, are as follows:

§2511. $ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination.

(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) (l) The parent by conduct continuing for aa period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing preceding filing of the petition petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused oror failed to to perform parental parental duties.

(2) (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, incapacity, abuse, abuse, neglect neglect or refusal of of the parent parent has caused caused the the child child to to be be without without essential essential parental parental care, care, control control or or subsistence subsistence necessary necessary for for his his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, the incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or or refusal refusal cannot cannot or or will will not not be be remedied remedied byby the the parent. parent.

4* k k

(b) (b) Other Other considerations. considerations. --- The The court court in in terminating terminating thethe rights rights of ofaa parent parent shall shall give give primary primary consideration consideration to to the the developmental, developmental, physical physical and and emotional emotional needs needs andand welfare welfare of ofthe the child. child.

The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such such asas inadequate inadequate housing, housing, furnishings, furnishings, income, income, clothing clothing and and medical medical care care if if found found toto be be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (a)(l), (6) (6) or or (8), (8), the the court court shall shall not not consider consider any any efforts efforts by by the the parent parent to to remedy remedy thethe conditions conditions described described therein therein which which areare first first initiated initiated subsequent subsequent to to the the giving giving of of notice notice of of the filing of the petition. the filing of the petition.

I.I. FACTUAL FACTUAL AND AND PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY OF OF THE THE CASE CASE The The factual factual history history of ofthis this case case begins begins with with the the birth birth of ofthe the Child Child on on June June 8,8, 2022.

2022. Mother Mother and and Father Father had had separated separated approximately approximately two two months months before before the the birth birth of of the the Child.

Child. Mother Mother had had suffered suffered aa traumatic traumatic event event when when another another child child of of hers hers was was tragically tragically killed. killed. Almost Almost immediately immediately following following the the Child’s Child's birth, birth, Father Father filed filed aa complaint complaint for for custody custody in in September September 2022.

2022. The The current current custody custody order orderbetween between the the parties parties has has been been in in place place since since March March 1,1, 2023, 2023, with with Father Father maintainin maintainingg primary primary physical physical custody. custody. At At that that time, time, and and since since that that point, point, Mother Mother allotted allotted supervised supervised partial partial physical physical custody custody with with supervision supervision to to be be provided provided by by aa licensed licensed agency. agency. Mother Mother has has not not taken taken advantage of this opportunity for supervised partial physical custody; it is reported by Father that Mother has not seen the Child since December 2022 2022 when the Child was only six six months old.

Mother’s Mother's testimony indicated that that she she was able to obtain some financial support that she was was planning to allocate allocate to pay for for periods periods of supervised supervised custody, custody, but but the the majority majority of of those those funds funds were were put put toward toward supervised supervised custody custody scheduling scheduling with with the the Child’s Child's sibling. sibling. According According to to Father’s Father's testimony, testimony, Mother Mother has has sporadically sporadically contacted contacted him him to to ask ask if if she she can can provide provide formula formula or or other other items items -- even even after after the the Child Child was was developmentally developmentally beyond beyond such such needs. needs.

Father Father testified testified that that Stepmother Stepmother has has shared shared in in performing performing the the parental parental duties duties for for the the Child Child with with him him in in Mother’s Mother's absence. absence. Father Father and and Stepmother Stepmother believe believe they they are are in in the the best best position position to to care care for for the the Child’s Child's special special needs, needs, as as she she has has aa cyst cyst on on her her pituitary pituitary gland. gland. The The Child Child identifies identifies Stepmother Stepmother as as her her mother; mother; itit isis unclear unclear if if the the Child Child would would recognize recognize Mother, Mother, since since her her last last in- in- person person contact contact with with the the Child Child would would have have been been over over two two years years ago. ago.

II.

II. ANALYSIS ANALYSIS On On appeal, appeal, Mother Mother first first argues argues that that the the Court Court erred erred in in finding finding that that Father Father and and Stepmother Stepmother reached reached the the evidentiary evidentiary burden burden pertaining pertaining to to Section Section 2511(a)(1) 251l(a)(l) and and (2), (2), in in light light of of Mother’s Mother's cumulative cumulativeefforts effortstotomaintain maintainaarelationship relationshipwith withthe theChild, Child,and andthe theburden burdenunder underSection Section251 2511(b) l(b) in inshowing showingwhether whethertermination terminationwould wouldbest bestserve servethe thedevelopmental, developmental,physical physicaland andemotional emotionalneeds needs and and welfare welfare of ofthe the Child.

Child. Lastly, Lastly, Mother Mother argues argues that that the the Court Courtdid didnot not give give due dueconsideration considerationtoto the the evidence evidence presented presented related related toto Father’s Father's conduct, conduct, both bothpast past and andpresent, present, and and its its impact impact on onthe the best bestinterest interestof ofthe theChild.

Child.

1. Factual Sufficiency ofFindings Pursuant to Section 2511(a)(l) 2511 (a)(l) and (2) First, the Court will address whether termination was warranted based upon the facts supported by the record under Section 2511(a)(1), l(a)(l), (2) and (b) of the Adoption Act. It is a well- settled principle of law that an appellate court’s oflaw court's standard of review in a parental rights termination ofreview matter is such that the appellate court will “accept "accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations made by the trial court if if they are supported by the record.” record." In re re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251,267 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

Before Before finding finding sufficient grounds to terminate terminate parental parental rights rights under Section 251 1(a)(1), l(a)(l), the the court court must must consider consider more more than than whether whether the the parent parent has has not not maintained maintained contact contact for for aa six-month six-month period period prior prior to to the the filing filing of of the the petition petition to to terminate terminate rights. rights. In In re: re: K.C.

K.C. W., W., 456 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 11 (1997). (1997).

The The court court must must also also consider consider any any barriers barriers that that aa parent parent faced faced during during said said period period and and whether whether the the parent parent exhibited exhibited reasonable reasonable firmness firmness in in his his or or her her attempt attempt to to overcome overcome those those barriers. barriers. Id. Id. The The evidence evidence presented presented to to the the Court Court indicated indicated that that Mother Mother had had not not had had seen seen the the Child Child since since December December 2022.

2022. She She has has not not performed performed any any parental parental duties duties since since shortly shortly after after Father Father obtained obtained custody custody in in October October 2022.

2022. This This evidence evidence isis sufficient sufficient to to establish establish grounds grounds under under Section Section 251 1(a)(1). l(a)(l).

Under Under Section Section 2511(a)(2), l(a)(2), termination termination isis warranted warranted where where aa parent parent demonstrates demonstrates an an incapacity incapacity or or refusal refusal to to parent parent and and the the circumstances circumstances surrounding surrounding the the incapacity incapacity or or refusal refusal cannot cannot or or will will not not be be remedied. remedied. The The above above evidence evidence clearly clearly establish establish that that Mother Mother has has either either refused refused to to parent parent or or isis incapable incapable of ofdoing doing so, so, and and because because itit has has been been since since December December 2022 2022 that that she she has has not not maintained maintained contact contact with with the the Child, Child, the the Court Court may may infer infer that that the the refusal refusal or or incapacity incapacity will will not not be be remedied. remedied.

For For these these reasons, reasons, the the Court Court found found that that Father Father satisfied satisfied the the evidentiary evidentiary burden burden under under Section Section 2511(a)(1) l(a)(l) and and (2). (2).

2.

2. Factual Sufficiency Factual ofFindings Sufficiency of Findings Pursuant Pursuant to Section 2511 to Section 2511(b) (b) Mother Mother further further argues argues that that the Court erred the Court erred in finding that in finding that Father Father and Stepmother carried and Stepmother carried their their burden burden in establishing that in establishing that the the best best interest interest of of the the Child will be be served through termination of of Mother’s Mother's rights. rights. During During the the hearing, hearing, Father Father testified, testified, and Mother mostly and Mother confirmed, that mostly confirmed, that Mother Mother had had little little to to no no contact contact with with the the Child over over the the last last two two years. years. Mother was was not not aware aware of of any any special needs needs caused caused by by the the Child’s Child's pituitary pituitary cysts. cysts. Mother Mother had had not not provided any support provided any support for for Father Father and and the the Child, Child, aside aside from from sporadically sporadically offering offering to to buy buy an an item item from from time time to to time. time. Instead, Instead, the the Child Child relies relies on on Stepmother Stepmother and and Father Father to to perform perform parental parental duties duties and and seeks seeks safety safety and and comfort from them comfort from them exclusively. exclusively.

For For these these reasons, reasons, the the Court Court found found that that severing severing the the parental parental rights rights of of Mother Mother would would be be in in the the Child’s Child's best best interest. interest.

3. Consideration ofFather ’s Past and Present Conduct Father's Lastly, Lastly, Mother Mother contends contends that that the the Court Court erred erred by by not not taking taking into into account account the the evidence evidence of of Father’s Father's past past and and present present conduct conduct and and whether whether such such conduct conduct is is in in the the best best interest interest of of the the Child.

Child. The The Court Court notes notes that that Mother Mother was was permitted permitted to to introduce introduce some some evidence, evidence, over over the the objection objection of of Father’s Father's counsel, related to Father’s Father's initial involvement with the Child so that the Court could have a fuller picture picture of of the the historical historical relationship relationship between between the the parties. parties. Evidence Evidence pertaining pertaining to to Father’s Father's specific specific conduct conduct in in regards regards to to parenting parenting choices choices are are only only tenuously tenuously relevant relevant to to aa termination termination proceeding proceeding regarding regarding Mother’s Mother's own own parental parental rights. rights. If If this evidence was was introduced during during a custody custody proceeding, proceeding, the the Court Court would would be be able able to to find find evidence evidence of of Father’s Father's conduct conduct relevant. relevant. As As such, such, the the Court Court did did not not err err in in failing failing to to consider consider any any evidence evidence of of Father’s Father's prior prior or or current current conduct. conduct.

III. CONCLUSIONS Following a one-day trial on this matter, the Court found that Father and Stepmother were able to present sufficient evidence to justify termination termination of Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights under under Section 2511 2511 (a)( 1 ) and (2) of the (a)(l) the Adoption Adoption Act.

Act. Additionally, Additionally, the the Court Court found found that that termination termination would would serve serve the the best best interest interest of of the the Child Child under under Section Section 2511(b).

2511 (b ). The The Court Court gave gave due due consideration consideration to to the the minimal minimal efforts efforts made made by by Mother Mother to to maintain maintain aa relationship relationship and and perform perform parental parental duties duties on on behalf behalf of ofthe the Child.

Child. Likewise, Likewise, the the Court Court gave gave due due consideration consideration to to the the evidence evidence presented presented as as to to the the nature nature of ofthe the bond bond between between Mother Mother and and Child Child and and the the impact impact of ofsevering severing any any such suchbond. bond. After After considering considering all all of ofthese these factors, factors, the the Court Court found found that that the the best best interest interest of ofthe the Child Child would would be be served served through through an an adoption adoption by by Stepmother Stepmother and and the the creation creation of ofan an intact intact family. family.

For For all all of ofthe the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the the Court Court involuntarily involuntarily terminated terminated the the parental parental rights rights of of Rhiannon Rhiannon Heckman, Heckman, birth birth mother mother of ofthe the minor minor child child Mila Mila Faye Faye Harrison.

Harrison.

BY BY THE THE COURT: COURT:

X. f 1KI Ik - tHAt _ ,J.

JU0GE JUSTIN M. WALSH INM. WALSH ATTEST: ATTEST: / j _l.ski., cl (A,. lode l, IriLua/id Clerk of ofOrphans’ Orphans' Court Court cc: cc: Ashley AshleyLovelace, Lovelace, Esq.

Esq.--Counsel Counselfor forPetitioners PetitionersFatther/Stepmother Fatther/Stepmother Randall RandallKlimchock, Klimchock,Esq.

Esq.---Counsel Counselfor forBirth BirthMother Mother Patricia PatriciaElliott-Rentler, Elliott-Rentler,Esq.

Esq.--Guardian Guardianad adlitem litem