230 A.3d 1217
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Parents (Mother L.H.G. and Father C.F.) divorced; two children (age six and five) lived with Mother and her fiancé T.B.; Father had a history of domestic violence and limited contact since early 2017.
- Mother filed involuntary termination petitions under the Adoption Act, asserting T.B. intended to adopt the children; petitions filed while Mother and T.B. were not yet married.
- Father was incarcerated at various times and appealed after the orphans’ court granted the termination petitions on June 20, 2019.
- Father’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders/Santiago brief asserting the appeal was frivolous.
- The Superior Court found counsel substantially complied with Anders’s technical requirements but, on independent review, identified an arguably meritorious issue about whether valid adoptions were “anticipated” given Mother and T.B. were unmarried when petitions were filed.
- The Superior Court denied counsel’s withdrawal, retained jurisdiction, and remanded for counsel to file an advocate’s brief within 30 days (Mother given 30 days to respond).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel met Anders/Santiago requirements to withdraw | Counsel substantially complied with Anders; withdrawal appropriate | Counsel filed Anders brief claiming appeal frivolous | Court: substantial compliance found, but independent review revealed a non-frivolous issue; denial of withdrawal and remand for advocate’s brief |
| Whether Mother’s termination petitions were cognizable absent marriage to prospective adoptive parent at filing (i.e., whether adoptions were legitimately "anticipated") | T.B. intended to adopt, so termination petitions were proper | Adoption likely not properly "anticipated" because Mother and T.B. were unmarried when petitions filed, raising statutory-compliance defense | Court: Issue is arguably meritorious (not frivolous); did not resolve merits and remanded for advocacy on the point |
| Proper remedy when an Anders brief in a parental-termination appeal omits a non-frivolous issue | Orphans’ court order should be reviewed and affirmed if appropriate | If a non-frivolous issue is found, counsel must file an advocate’s brief rather than withdraw | Court: Apply criminal-case model—deny withdrawal and remand for advocate’s brief (30-day deadlines) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (sets withdrawal-on-appeal procedural requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (clarifies Anders obligations in Pennsylvania)
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (extends Anders principles to termination-of-parental-rights appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (requires independent appellate review for overlooked meritorious issues)
- In re Adoption of M.R.D., 145 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2016) (Adoption Act must be strictly complied with)
- In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (reinforces strict statutory compliance for adoptions)
- Commonwealth v. Blauser, 166 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2017) (addresses when an appeal is "wholly frivolous")