young child who is serving a lengthy term of incarceration presents a very different calculation, involving minimal emotional bonding and substantial delay prior to any hope of reunification. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), March 2, 2010 at 84 (“If it was a longer period of time, if he was going to be in jail for ten years ... I would say, well, the kids are going to be 15 years old before they know him. That’s way too late. They deserve to have permanency.”) I agree with the trial court. It is incumbent upon the judicial system to be child-focused. Regardless of the heartbreak to a parent, children are entitled to every opportunity for a successful life, and a permanent, loving parental relationship greatly fosters that opportunity. See e.g. In re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa.Super.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I write to emphasize my
holding that foster parents have standing to intervene to seek termination of parental rights recognizing that fathers parental rights were terminated based upon his incarceration and his behavior while in prison his history of substance abuse and the fact that his child support payments are in arrears holding that a parents rights must yield to the childs right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent healthy safe environment a parent cannot protect his parental rights by merely stating that he does not wish to have his rights terminated internal citations omitted recognizing that termination of parental rights can be accomplished only by resort to chapters 63 adoption and 39 termination of parental rights and any attempt by a parent to contract away the childs right to support is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police