Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-106 Adoption IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ADOPTION OF : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION N.R.W. : 106 ADOPTIONS 2006 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 Bayley, J., June 15, 2007:-- September 20, 2006 On , James P. Wilfrom, Jr., age 29, and Dorothy G. Wilfrom, age 29, filed a petition to adopt his daughter Noel Ranju Wilfrom, age 10. Concurrently, a petition was filed to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Noel’s mother, Fumie Sakuma Mowatt. Hearings on the latter petition were conducted on May 3, 2007 March 14 and May 2, 2007. On , the following order was entered: . . . finding that Fumie Sakuma Mowatt, the mother of Noel Ranju Wilfrom, born March 25, 1997, has for a continuing period of more than six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition herein, (1) evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to Noel, and (2) failed to perform parental duties, and finding that it is in the best interest of Noel to IT IS ORDERED terminate the parental rights of Fumie Sakuma Mowatt, that the parental rights of Fumie Sakuma Mowatt to Noel Ranju Wilfrom, ARE TERMINATED . Fumie Mowatt filed a direct appeal from the order in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, she avers: 1. The Court erred in finding that it was in the minor’s best interest to terminate the parental rights of Ms. Mowatt where Ms. Mowatt had no information to enable her to keep in contact with the minor, the minor’s father’s actions affected Ms. Mowatt in thinking her contact with the minor would affect the minor’s current life negatively, and the fact that she wants to remain a parental figure in the minor’s life. 2. Even if the Court decides all of the above is not correct, Ms. Mowatt’s culture necessitates a somewhat different approach to parenting and life, in general. The fact that she was not aggressive in seeking out her daughter should not be held against her if this in fact is way of life for this culture. 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 3. There was not sufficient evidence of record before the court, where the testimony taken was limited, and where the moving party had a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Ms. Mowatt’s parental rights should not have been terminated. James Wilfrom is on active duty in the United States Marine Corps. He and Dorothy Wilfrom were married on May 22, 2001. He is stationed with a truck company in Edensburg, Pennsylvania. They live at 18 Ash Street, Northern Cambria, Pennsylvania with Noel and their two sons James, age 5, and Tyler, age 3. The mother of Noel, Fumie Mowatt, lives with her husband at 320 Pomelo Drive, Vista, California. Her husband is on active duty in the United States Marine Corps. Noel was born on May 25, 1997, when her mother and father were living together at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1999, the family moved to Japan. Later that year, the mother separated and she and Noel moved into the home of Noel’s maternal grandmother in Japan. The mother voluntarily returned Noel to the father around the beginning of 2000, and they lived together in military base housing. The last time the mother saw Noel was in 2001 right before Noel and her father left Japan for him to return to duty in the United States. The next time the mother spoke to the father was in 2003 when he sought a custody order in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where he was then living with his family. At that time, the mother was living in California where her husband was stationed. She agreed to the entry of an order providing the father with custody of Noel. On January 6, 2004, the father notified the mother’s husband, whom he knew, by email, of his new address and phone number -2- 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 1 in Northern Cambria. The mother testified that she last talked to Noel by telephone in 2003. She testified that every time she had talked to Noel by telephone the father or his wife would make her feel uncomfortable. She testified that after the custody order was entered, she never called again because she did not want to cause any problem. She acknowledged that she has never provided any support for Noel. She has never sent Noel a gift, a letter or a card. She has never tried to see Noel since their last contact in Japan in 2001. The mother testified that, since 2003, she had no address or telephone number at which to contact Noel. She said that she did not know if her husband received the email that the father sent to him in January, 2004. She testified that she does have the telephone number of the father’s parents. She acknowledged that she could always find out through the Marine Corps where the father is living. She testified that she did not want her parental rights terminated because she always wanted to be part of Noel’s life and she always wants Noel to know who her mother is. The Adoption Act at 23 Pa.C.S. Section 2511(a)(1) and (b), 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. * * * (b) Other considerations.— The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical 1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 . -3- 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. . . . A party seeking termination of parental rights bears the burden of establishing In re B.L.L., by clear and convincing evidence, grounds existing for doing so. 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001). Clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear Id. conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. A court must initially find that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights have Id. been met. Only after it has determined in a bifurcated process that the parent has forfeited a right to parent a child, must it turn to a review of the needs and welfare of the child. Noel’s mother has completely abrogated her parental responsibilities. We believe that she has known where the father is living in Northern Cambria. In any event, she could have easily obtained, either through the Marine Corps or the father’s parents, the address and telephone number in Northern Cambria. Once she consented to the custody order in 2003, and talked to Noel by telephone, when the father was living in Cumberland County, she completely dropped out of Noel’s life. The father did not put up any restraints on the mother’s ability to maintain contact with Noel. Whatever cultural differences there may be they do not affect the standard set forth in -4- 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 2 Section 2511(a)(1) of the Adoption Act. After hearings in which both parties had made a complete record, James Wilfrom proved by clear and convincing evidence that Fumie Mowatt, by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition on September 20, 2006, (1) evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to Noel and (2) failed to perform parental duties. While Noel understands who her natural mother is, she recognizes Dorothy Wilfrom as her parent and calls her mother. She has an excellent relationship with Dorothy that has been nurtured since 2001, and she loves her two younger brothers. She lived with Dorothy and her brothers when her father was stationed in Iraq from February 2005 until March 2006. This is a thriving family in which the father and his wife have provided all of the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of Noel since 2001. The father has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of Noel to terminate the parental rights of her mother. For the foregoing reasons, the order of May 3, 2007, terminating the parental rights of Fumie Sakuma Mowatt to Noel Ranju Wilfrom, was properly entered. 2 Parental duty requires that the parent not yield to every problem, but must act affirmatively, with good faith interest and effort, to maintain the parent-child relationship Appeal of C.S., Sr., to the best of her ability, even in difficult circumstances. See 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000). Even when there are barriers or obstructive behavior by a parent, the parent must exhibit reasonable firmness in attempting to overcome such In re K.C.W., difficulties. 689 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 1997). -5- 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 (Date) Edgar B. Bayley, J. -6- 06 ADOPTIONS 2006 Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire For Petitioners Leslie Ann Tomeo, Esquire For Fumie Sakuma Mowatt Jane E. Adams, Esquire Court-appointed for Noel Ranju Wilfrom :sal -7-