In Re: Adoption of: A.D.M., A Minor
In Re: Adoption of: A.D.M., A Minor - No. 85 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Children L.B.M. and A.D.M. were subjects of adoption/termination proceedings in Franklin County; appeals followed from the Superior Court affirming the Orphans’ Court orders.
- The trial court permitted the proceedings to go forward with the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) acting as the only lawyer representing the children.
- The statutory framework (Section 2313(a)) mandates appointment of counsel in termination proceedings and contemplates discretionary appointment of a guardian ad litem.
- The Superior Court affirmed the trial court; the case reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Chief Justice Saylor concurred in large part but issued a separate opinion disagreeing with the majority’s categorical rule barring a GAL from serving as counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to appoint counsel required by statute in termination proceedings | J.P. (mother) argued the appointment of separate counsel for the children was mandatory and the court erred by treating counsel appointment as optional | Trial court treated the GAL-as-counsel appointment as sufficient | Court characterized the trial court’s order as a failure to appoint counsel (appointment mandatory) |
| Whether a guardian ad litem may also serve as the child’s counsel (per se prohibition vs. case-by-case) | Mother/majority argued roles are distinct and a GAL may not serve as counsel because counsel must advocate the child’s legal interests | Chief Justice Saylor argued no categorical bar is required; same individual may serve as GAL and counsel absent actual/potential conflict, judged case-by-case | Majority adopted a per se prohibition (GAL may not serve as counsel); Saylor concurred in result on other grounds but dissented from the per se rule, advocating conflict-based analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 567 Pa. 310, 787 A.2d 292 (discusses evaluation of conflicts of interest in counsel appointments)
- Commonwealth v. King, 618 Pa. 405, 57 A.3d 607 (addresses consequences of conflicting loyalties on counsel performance)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (identifies concern that conflicts can distort counsel’s strategic decisions)