Adoption of: C.A.F., minors Appeal of: B.F.
Adoption of: C.A.F., minors Appeal of: B.F. No. 1403 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Mother (B.F.) voluntarily consented to termination of parental rights to two sons (C.A.F. and J.D.C.) in February 2014; adoptions finalized August 5, 2014. Mother was represented by counsel during the termination proceedings.
- Mother later asserted she was mentally incompetent at the time of the voluntary terminations based on psychiatric evaluations from criminal proceedings in 2013–2014, and did not appeal the termination decrees within the allowed time.
- Adoptive parents entered Voluntary Post-Adoption Contact Agreements (Act 101) providing for supervised visits at least four times per year between Mother and the children.
- Adoptive parents filed petitions (Aug. 31, 2015) to discontinue or modify the Act 101 agreements; Mother moved to strike the termination and adoption decrees nearly two years after the terminations.
- The orphans’ court held evidentiary hearings (Jan. 13 and July 11, 2016), received testimony from the adoptive mother and counselors, and concluded there was no basis to vacate the prior termination or adoption decrees.
- The court found by clear and convincing evidence that discontinuing the Act 101 agreement served the children’s needs, welfare, and best interests (primarily because of diagnosed reactive attachment issues in the older child); Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Adoptive Parents / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying Mother’s motion to strike/vacate the voluntary termination of parental rights and the adoption decrees | Mother: Her consent was not intelligent/voluntary due to mental incapacity shown in psychiatric reports; justice/public policy require vacatur | Adoptive Parents/Court: No authority for collateral attack; Mother had counsel, was found to understand consequences, did not timely appeal or raise competency; adoption decree valid and final | Court affirmed denial; Mother may not relitigate termination; consent found voluntary, intelligent, deliberate |
| Whether the court erred by discontinuing (or modifying) the Act 101 Voluntary Post-Adoption Contact Agreement | Mother: Visits were beneficial; adoptive parents intended never to comply; diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder is contrary to evidence | Adoptive Parents/Court: Testimony and counselor’s opinion established continuing visits harm child (clear and convincing evidence); discontinuance best serves children’s welfare | Court affirmed discontinuance of the Act 101 agreement for both children as being in their best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.L.O., 490 Pa. 237, 416 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1980) (consent to termination must be intelligent, voluntary, and deliberate)
- Chambers Appeal, 452 Pa. 149, 305 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1973) (high burden to disturb final adoption decree; late challenges not favored)
- Adoption of Christopher P., 480 Pa. 79, 389 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1978) (standards for reviewing petition to vacate adoption decree)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 889 A.2d 92 (Pa. Super. 2005) (child welfare can justify revocation of adoption in absence of fraud if in child’s best interest)
- In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)