Adoption of: B.G.S., Appeal of: S.S.
240 A.3d 658
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Child born January 2019; Mother placed Child for adoption through Transitions Adoption Agency without informing Father.
- Child placed with prospective adoptive parents in February 2019; Mother later told the Agency and Father (around April–May 2019) that Father might be the child’s father; paternity was later confirmed.
- Father made limited efforts after learning of possible paternity: attempted calls to the Agency (one went to voicemail; one August 26 call reached the director), sought family help and an attorney who did not handle the case, and had almost no financial or material support to the Child before the termination petition.
- Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights on September 9, 2019; hearings were held November 25, 2019 and January 22, 2020.
- The orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (6), and (b). Father appealed; counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief to this Court.
- The Superior Court concluded Father’s appeal was not wholly frivolous and denied counsel’s withdrawal, remanding for counsel to file an advocate’s brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel may withdraw under Anders after investigating appeals in a termination case | Counsel says investigation shows appeal frivolous and seeks leave to withdraw | Father can raise additional arguments or retain counsel; procedural safeguards required | Court found Anders procedural requirements largely met but appeal not wholly frivolous; denied withdrawal and remanded for an advocate's brief |
| Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was supported (failure to perform parental duties for 6 months) | Agency/Orphans’ Ct: Father failed to perform parental duties May–Sept 2019 and evidenced settled purpose to relinquish | Father lacked notice of Child’s birth until ~April/May 2019 and had limited resources and obstacles; thus could not have performed duties for 6 months before petition | Superior Court noted possible error: Father may have had only ~4–5 months after learning of Child to act, so (a)(1) finding may be improper; remanded for briefing |
| Whether §2511(a)(6) termination was supported (applies to newborns) | Agency: statute applies and father had reason to know by early May 2019 | Father: Child was ~8 months old at filing, so (a)(6) inapplicable; Father lacked notice at birth | Superior Court questioned (a)(6) application because child was ~8 months at petition filing and thus not a "newborn" under the statute; remanded for briefing |
| Whether termination met §2511(b) best-interests standard (bonding/welfare) | Orphans’ Ct: Child’s developmental/ emotional welfare favored termination given Father’s lack of contact/support | Father asserts sincere desire to parent and obstacles limited his efforts; argues bond is minimal and termination premature | Superior Court did not resolve merits of (b); remanded for advocate briefing to address whether severing bond is in Child’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for counsel withdrawal when appeal frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania’s Anders brief requirements)
- In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (applying Anders procedure to parental-rights termination appeals)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference in termination cases)
- In re Adoption of M.R.B., 25 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2011) (statutory definition/limits of "newborn child" under §2511(a)(6))
- In re Adoption of C.J.A., 204 A.3d 496 (Pa. Super. 2019) (parent’s efforts to overcome obstacles can preclude termination despite lack of contact)
- In re M.C.F., 230 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2020) (denying counsel withdrawal where appeal is not wholly frivolous; remanding for advocate brief)