270 A.3d 563
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Mother (D.C.O.) appealed the involuntary termination of her parental rights to son A.J.R.O. (b. Sept. 2014); Father’s rights were also terminated but he did not appeal.
- Family had longstanding CYS involvement: child tested positive for opiates/benzodiazepines at birth (2014); dependency adjudication in 2015 (then closed Feb. 2016); renewed referrals led to second dependency adjudication in April 2019.
- A.J.R.O. has remained continuously in his paternal aunt/foster parent’s home since March/April 2019. CYS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights (Sept. 23, 2020) and separately sought a permanency goal change to adoption.
- The orphans’ court held consolidated hearings (Mar. 24 and Apr. 28, 2021), entered a termination decree (filed May 24, 2021) and a goal-change order (Apr. 28, 2021).
- Mother filed one notice of appeal listing both the adoption and dependency docket numbers but only filed it at the adoption docket. This raised Walker/Rule 341 issues; the Superior Court allowed correction under Pa.R.A.P. 902 but limited the appeal to the adoption docket claims.
- The court sua sponte reviewed whether the guardian ad litem (Attorney Ullman) had been properly authorized to serve as both GAL and §2313 counsel; because the certified record did not show the orphans’ court made the required on-the-record determination that the child’s legal and best interests did not conflict, the Superior Court vacated the termination decree and remanded for the §2313(a)/P.G.F. determination and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother (Appellant) Argument | CYS (Respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Procedural compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 341 / whether appeal should be quashed | She asked the Court to strike the goal-change portion or excuse defect (benchbook reliance; consolidation justified single notice) | Quash appeal under Walker for failing to file separate notices for separate dockets | Court declined to quash; pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 902 allowed remedy by permitting Mother to abandon dependency claims and proceed only on adoption-docket claims |
| 2) Whether GAL/counsel properly appointed to represent both child’s legal and best interests under §2313(a) and K.M.G./P.G.F. | Not directly argued; record lacks an explicit court determination that dual representation would not create a conflict | No record showing the orphans’ court made required on-the-record determination | Superior Court vacated termination decree and remanded for the orphans’ court to determine whether Attorney Ullman could represent dual interests; if no conflict, re-enter decree; if conflict, appoint separate counsel and hold new termination hearing |
| 3) Whether evidence satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (abandonment, bonding, best interests) — e.g., abandonment finding and harm from severing bond | Trial court erred finding abandonment; severance would cause irreparable harm due to strong bond | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence and serves child’s needs and welfare | Merits not reached due to GAL issue; substantive claims preserved for remand or subsequent proceedings |
| 4) Whether COVID-19 emergency orders and suspended visitation/time should excuse delays or affect termination analysis | Pandemic-related court and executive orders (stay-at-home, suspension of in-person visitation) should have tolled timelines and affected equitable analysis | Court considered circumstances; termination still appropriate | Merits not decided; claim preserved but case remanded for GAL §2313(a) compliance before merits adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket)
- Always Busy Consulting, LLC v. Babford & Company, Inc., 247 A.3d 1033 (Pa. 2021) (consolidation/lead-docket rule can permit single notice where all record information exists at lead docket)
- In the Interest of S.D., 257 A.3d 746 (Pa. Super. 2021) (applied Walker to require separate notices for termination and goal-change orders)
- In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019) (similar Walker application in dependency/adoption appeals)
- In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218 (Pa. 2020) (addresses appointment of counsel and review when counsel serves dual GAL/§2313 roles)
- In re P.G.F., 247 A.3d 955 (Pa. 2021) (explains appellate review requires orphans’ court to determine on record whether GAL/counsel may represent dual legal and best interests)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discusses appellate leniency for procedural defaults in dependency appeals)
- In re H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908 (Pa. 2003) (order terminating parental rights is final and appealable)