An opinion by a panel of Superior Court judges issued Friday upheld a Blair County judge’s decision to terminate the parental rights of a father who turned his life around after a stint in prison, but who had little contact with his children for a period of two years.

According to the Superior Court panel that included Judges Deborah A. Kunselman, Megan Sullivan and Correale F. Stevens, Blair County Children, Youth and Families had been involved with the family for more than a decade.

The appeals court stated the mother and father had multiple convictions for endangering the welfare of children and driving under the influence.

And in 2022, the court granted the mother’s request for a protection from abuse order that barred the father from contacting the family for three years.

Blair CYF in 2023 once again entered the picture after learning both parents were in prison.

The court granted CYF protective custody and the children — a brother and sister — were placed in a foster home, where they continue to live and thrive, according to the appeals court.

In early 2025, Blair CYF sought termination of parental rights for both parents, which was granted.

The father, however, challenged the petition for involuntary termination, and after losing his case before Blair County Judge David B. Consiglio, he filed an appeal with the Superior Court.

“Father testified he was incarcerated from December 2022 until July 2023 and will be on probation until 2032,” the Superior Court reported.

The father emphasized he completed in-patient treatment for substance abuse and now is a recovery specialist who works with addicts.

Despite this turn-around, his contact with CYF was, as he admitted, “minimal.”

He never informed CYF about his rehabilitation efforts and never filed exceptions to or sought modification of the PFA his wife had filed against him, it was pointed out.

Over the years, he also reported he only attended two dependency hearings involving his children. Dependency hearings occur every three months.

His strategy was to seek custody of the children.

Meanwhile, the children were bonding with their foster parents.

The young girl testified that the foster parents, whom she identified as Mom and Dad, take care of her, and she stated she felt safe with them.

The young boy also testified he wanted to be adopted by the foster parents and did not want to visit with his mother and father.

He remembered his father as “someone who yelled frequently,” the Superior Court opinion stated.

“The trial court (Judge Consiglio) concluded the children are bonded with the foster parents and have no bond with the father,” the Superior Court panel emphasized.

It also stated, “A foster care manager who had been working with the children for approximately two years testified the father never contacted her or sent her anything for her to give to the children.”

The opinion related the father viewed the PFA brought by the mother as a major obstacle to his having contact with the children but, it stated, the father did not demonstrate “reasonable firmness” to overcome an obstruction to his contact with the children.

The panel agreed that it was in the “best interests of the children” to terminate the father’s rights.

In conclusion, the Superior Court opinion stated, “The record establishes (the brother and sister) felt integrated into the foster family with whom they lived, considered the foster parents’ other children with whom they lived as their siblings, felt cared for, and wanted to be adopted, leading the trial court to conclude the children have a genuine and deep bond with the foster parents.”