Adoption of J.T.M., Appeal of: J.T.M.
1157 WDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 24, 2022Background
- Mother filed a petition (Jan. 27, 2021) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to Child (b. May 2007); Stepfather filed to adopt.
- Father was incarcerated at SCI‑Greene and did not appear at the July 1, 2021 hearing; proofs of service by mail were entered.
- Mother, Stepfather, and the 14‑year‑old Child (who asked that Father’s rights be terminated so Stepfather could adopt) testified; the orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b).
- Father timely filed a pro se notice of appeal but did not file the concise statement; counsel was later appointed and failed to file a concise statement when ordered.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a petition to withdraw with an Anders brief; the Superior Court found the Anders brief substantively deficient (did not identify anything in the record that arguably supported the appeal and failed to address § 2511(b)).
- The Superior Court held counsel had not abandoned Father, deemed the appeal timely due to a docketing/notice defect, denied counsel’s petition to withdraw, and ordered counsel to file a compliant Anders brief or an advocate’s brief within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel complied with Anders/Santiago | Counsel’s Anders filing sufficed to show appeal frivolous | Anders brief is deficient: fails to identify arguable issues or reference record and omits §2511(b) analysis | Anders brief deficient; withdrawal denied; counsel must file compliant Anders brief or advocate’s brief addressing §2511(a) and (b) |
| Whether counsel abandoned Father by failing to file concise statement | Counsel did not abandon; rules permit Anders path in TPR cases | Father contended counsel abandoned him by missing court‑ordered filing | Orphans’ court and Superior Court found no abandonment |
| Whether appeal was timely despite docket entries | Decree was properly entered; appeal period ran | Clerk failed to note written notice date; USPS tracking shows later service; appeal should be treated as timely | Appeal deemed timely due to breakdown in court operations (docketing/notice defect) |
| Whether §2511(a) and (b) were properly applied at trial (merits) | Mother argued termination satisfied under §2511(a)(1),(2) and that §2511(b) supports severance and adoption | Father did not appear to contest merits at hearing; appeal preserved but not yet reviewed on merits | Orphans’ court terminated rights; Superior Court did not resolve merits on appeal and required proper appellate briefing before review |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal deemed frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania elaboration of Anders requirements)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (requirement to analyze §2511(b) — child’s needs and welfare — if §2511(a) is satisfied)
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders procedure applicable to termination of parental rights appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders)
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (tolling/relief when court clerical error prevents triggering appeal deadline)