In re L.A.K.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 14 WAP 2021, No. 15 WAP 2021,14 WAP 2021 |
| Citation | 265 A.3d 580 |
| Parties | IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.A.K. Appeal of: C.K. In re: Adoption of: A.L.K. Appeal of: C.K. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Patricia Lynn Elliott-Rentler, Esq., for Guardian Ad Litem, Participants.
Linda Long Whalen, Esq., for Appellant.
Stephen Michael Crevak, Esq., for Appellee L.A.K.
Ashley M. Lovelace, Esq. Bolkovac Law Offices, for Appellees A.G., B.G.
Pennsylvania's Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S, §§ 2101 - 2938, authorizes the involuntary termination of parental rights in certain enumerated circumstances. Section 2511(a)(1) of the Adoption Act permits the termination of parental rights upon establishing parental abandonment. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1).1 In this case, the trial court denied a petition seeking the termination of parental rights based on Section 2511(a)(1) and (2)2 and the Superior Court reversed with respect to Section 2511(a)(1). In this discretionary appeal, we consider whether the Superior Court erred in its review of the trial court's determination. We further consider whether evidence of a parent's efforts to achieve sobriety can defeat a claim of parental abandonment. We recognize that alcohol addiction
can present a barrier to fulfilling parental obligations and as such, the determination of whether efforts to overcome the barrier are sufficient to overcome a finding of parental abandonment under Section 2511(a)(1) of the Adoption Act is a fact-specific determination that rests within the discretion of the trial court. Because the Superior Court exceeded its scope of review in this case, we reverse its determination and remand the case to the Superior Court with instructions to reinstate the order of the trial court.
C.K. ("Father") is an alcoholic. By the age of thirteen, he was drinking to the point of blacking out. N.T., 7/22/2020, at 67. His uncontrollable drinking continued through his early adulthood and his marriage to A.G. ("Mother"), with whom he shares two children. Id. at 68. Largely as a result of Father's alcoholism, Mother and Father separated in 2015 and divorced in 2017. Id. at 8. At the time Mother and Father separated, L.A.K. was three years old and A.L.K. was seven months old.
Id. at 9. Following separation, Mother retained custody of the children. Father last saw the children in January 2016. Id. at 10. In March 2016, a custody order was entered, providing Father with supervised visitation with the children in the presence of a therapist, for which he had to bear the cost. Father never exercised his rights under this order. He testified that he could not afford to pay for the visitation sessions and he did not want the children to see him grappling with his addiction. Id. at 103-04; Trial Court Opinion, 10/23/2020, at 3. Mother candidly testified at the trial that it was best for the children that Father was not involved in their lives while he was in the depths of his addiction N.T., 7/22/2020, at 28.
Mother does not dispute the severity of Father's alcoholism. She was aware of Father's struggles with alcohol prior to their marriage and testified that it was "a good thing" that Father did not have contact with the children while he was struggling to become sober. Id. at 27-28. Between the date the parties separated in 2015 and October 2018, Father's alcoholism controlled his life. His mother ("Paternal Grandmother") permitted Father to live in her home for a time, but she eventually kicked him out because of his drinking and the physical destruction to her house that he caused when drinking. Id. at 139-40. During that time, he lost his driver's license and nursing license and experienced periods of homelessness and unemployment. Father attended two inpatient treatment centers and at least five detoxification programs. Father's last hospitalization for alcohol-related issues occurred in October 2018. This was, according to Father, when he hit "rock bottom." Id. at 75, 80. At that time, Father's withdrawal symptoms, including seizures and hallucinations, intensified and were more severe than they had ever been. Id. at 80.
Upon his discharge from that hospitalization in October 2018, Father attended ninety Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in ninety days, and at the time of the termination hearing in July 2020, Father estimated that he had attended more than 500 meetings. Father also attended Celebrate Recovery for a period of time, a program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous also aimed at maintaining sobriety. In his previous attempts at sobriety, Father would take on "too much, too fast," which would lead to a relapse within a period of months. Id. at 87, 121. Because he did not want to risk traumatizing the children by coming in and out of their lives, he decided to wait until he achieved a year of sobriety before making contact with them. Id. at 87. Father conceived the idea to wait for a year of sobriety from his familiarity with the Alcoholics Anonymous program, as it frequently uses a year of sobriety as a benchmark for resuming various activities, such as dating. Id. Once he obtained a full year of sobriety, Father "was confident enough that [he] could keep it and move forward with seeing [his] children at that point." Id. at 87-88. On October 23, 2019, a few days after marking a year of sobriety, Father filed his petition seeking to modify the custody order. Id. at 94-95. As a result of this filing, a custody conciliation was scheduled for December 19, 2019.
Mother and Stepfather (sometimes collectively referred to as "Appellees) have lived with the children, as well as Stepfather's son from a previous relationship, since 2017. Id. at 17. Mother and Stepfather married in the summer of 2019, and in furtherance of their efforts to blend their families, they decided that Stepfather would adopt L.A.K. and A.L.K. and Mother would adopt Stepfather's son. Id. at 20. Following Mother's separation from Father, Mother allowed Paternal Grandmother to regularly spend time with the children in Paternal Grandmother's home.
Typically, Paternal Grandmother would pick the children up from daycare and keep them until Mother finished work or otherwise have the children spend the night in her home. Id. at 28-29, 144. Shortly before ending all contact, in September 2019, Mother conditioned Paternal Grandmother's time with the children on the agreement that she would not discuss the children with Father or share photographs and videos of the children with Father. Id. at 147-48. Mother ceased all contact between Paternal Grandmother and the children in October 2019. Id. at 30-31.
On October 31, 2019, Mother and Stepfather filed petitions seeking to terminate Father's parental rights alleging both parental abandonment and parental incapacity on Father's part. Although filed only days apart, Mother and Stepfather deny that they filed these petitions in response to Father's request to modify the custody order.3 Id. at 57. At the hearing in this matter, Mother and Stepfather explained that they first discussed the process to terminate Father's parental rights with counsel in August 2019, and they attribute the delay in filing to their busy summer schedule and the time and effort it took to locate all of the information needed. Id. at 20, 56-57. Notwithstanding the filing of the termination petitions, the previously scheduled custody conciliation occurred in December 2019 and resulted in an order providing for reunification therapy between Father and the children. The order further provided, however, that the implementation of the reunification efforts would be stayed until the adjudication of the petitions to terminate Father's parental rights. See Trial Court Order, 12/18/2019, at 3.
The hearing on the termination petitions occurred in July 2020, at which Mother, Father, Stepfather and Paternal Grandmother testified to the circumstances described above. Also relevant for our purposes, Mother testified that A.K. does not know who Father is and that L.A.K. only has a "brief recollection" of Father. Id. at 22. Mother believes that the children are physically and mentally healthy and well-adjusted, and that it would be detrimental to their emotional stability for Father to be reintroduced into their lives. Id. at 23-24. Mother explained that the children "have grown comfortable and really bonded with us as a family" and that she was "concerned about how it would affect them and their relationship with [Stepfather], their relationship with me" if a relationship with Father were reestablished. Id. at 24. Mother harbors some fear for the children's physical safety with Father, as in the past she would return home to find Father passed out and the children crying. Id. Mother denied ever witnessing anything that would suggest that either child has a bond with Father. She believes that termination of Father's rights would be in the children's best interests. Id. at 24-25. Stepfather testified that L.A.K. has occasionally expressed memories of "old dad" and asked where "old dad" is. Id. at 58. Stepfather believes that he and the children share a bond and that reintroducing Father to the children would cause them anxiety and confusion. Id. at 59. He, like Mother, believes that terminating Father's rights would serve the children's best interests. Id. at 60. Legal counsel for the children testified that he met with the children for approximately one hour, during which time he asked the children questions about their family. Id. at 151. During the interview, A.K. gave no indication that she knew who Father was. Id. at 152. After some prompting, L.A.K. identified Father as "old dad," although he could not recall when he last saw him. Id. The guardian ad litem acknowledged Father's sobriety but questioned his commitment to it. Id. at 154-57. She further expressed her belief that the children are in a "stable situation," that Father's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.T.
...particular developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare must be made on a case-by-case basis. See In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 593 (Pa. 2021). We have observed "the law regarding termination of parental rights should not be applied mechanically but instead always with......
- In re A.V.C.
- In re P.M.
- In re M.R.S.