## Facts

- Two minor children, C.A.W. (born 1989) and A.A.W. (born 1990), were removed from their mother’s home after reports of abuse and were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
- The natural father was incarcerated throughout the dependency and termination proceedings.
- The father had a lengthy criminal record and was serving a state prison sentence of 32 to 72 years for multiple violent sexual offenses against a child.
- Evidence showed the father would not be able to provide in-person parental care during the children’s minority.
- The father attempted to maintain contact while incarcerated by sending letters, gifts, cards, and checks; the agency returned the checks.
- Testimony indicated the children had significant developmental and emotional needs; A.A.W. required intensive treatment for reactive detachment disorder and needed a permanent, actively supportive family setting.
- The county child welfare agency filed petitions to involuntarily terminate the father’s parental rights under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2).
- The orphans’ court terminated the father’s parental rights after a hearing at which he was present and represented by counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2) based on the father’s repeated and continued incapacity causing the children to be without essential parental care, and the inability or unwillingness to remedy that incapacity.
2. Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(b) by giving primary consideration to the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.
3. Whether the father’s efforts to maintain contact while incarcerated defeated termination where the petition proceeded under § 2511(a)(2) rather than an abandonment theory.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order terminating the father’s parental rights.
- The court held that the father’s lengthy incarceration constituted a present and continued incapacity that deprived the children of essential parental care, control, and subsistence.
- The court concluded the causes of the incapacity could not be remedied within a time frame consistent with the children’s needs because the father’s potential release would occur, at the earliest, after the children reached adulthood.
- The court ruled that termination was not based on abandonment; therefore, the father’s letters and gifts did not preclude termination under § 2511(a)(2).
- The court held the trial court properly prioritized the children’s need for permanence and stability under § 2511(b), given their trauma history and ongoing treatment needs.
- The court found the record met the clear and convincing evidence standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2), parental rights may be terminated when repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal causes a child to be without essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for physical or mental well-being, and the causes of the incapacity cannot or will not be remedied.
- Under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(b), the court must give primary consideration to the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare when deciding whether termination best serves the child.
- Incarceration is not, by itself, an automatic ground for termination, but it may establish continued incapacity and nonremediability when it prevents the parent from providing essential care within the child’s time horizon.
- Termination under § 2511(a)(2) does not require proof of abandonment or an intent to relinquish parental rights; the focus is the effect of incapacity on the child and whether it can be remedied in time to meet the child’s needs.
- Appellate review sustains termination where the trial court’s findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed involuntary termination because the father’s extraordinarily long incarceration created an irremediable incapacity to provide essential parental care during the children’s minority, and the children’s immediate need for permanence and active support justified termination under § 2511(a)(2) and § 2511(b).


In re Adoption of C.A.W., 683 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)