In Re: Adoption of C.A.S. minor, Appeal of: B.A.S., 166 A.3d 353

Child born Jan 2012 to Father (B.A.S., Jr.) and Mother (B.N.); parents separated after Father’s drug use.
Mother and her partner (Boyfriend/J.O.) filed a petition on Sept. 22, 2016 to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights and to adopt the child.
Petitioners’ counsel mailed Father six documents (including a termination notice and a blank in forma pauperis form) advising him how to obtain counsel.
The mailed materials gave conflicting instructions: some documents directed Father to file the enclosed in forma pauperis with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court; others directed him to contact Laurel Legal Services.
At the Dec. 12, 2016 hearing Father (pro se) requested a continuance to obtain counsel; the orphans’ court denied the continuance and proceeded.
The court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on Dec. 15, 2016; the Superior Court vacated that order and remanded for a new termination hearing because Father may have been misled about how to request court-appointed counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by proceeding without appointing counsel for Father	Father: he lacked education/competence to understand rights and the notices; he requested a continuance to obtain counsel	Petitioners: Father was mailed clear instructions and the right to petition for counsel; failure to act waives right	Vacated and remanded — Superior Court found conflicting/inaccurate instructions may have misled Father, so waiver not established; court must determine indigency and appoint counsel if appropriate
Whether petitioners met burden of clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights	Father: termination unsupported and impact on child not adequately shown	Petitioners: termination necessary to allow Boyfriend to adopt	Not reached — Superior Court did not decide on merits because of procedural error regarding counsel

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review in termination cases and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parents have constitutionally protected right to counsel in involuntary termination proceedings)
In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same principle regarding right to counsel)
In re A.R., 125 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2015) (indigent parents need not be appointed counsel automatically but must be advised how to petition)
In re Adoption of R.I., 312 A.2d 601 (Pa. 1973) (courts must advise parents of right to counsel)
In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 2005) (parent may waive right to counsel if provided clear instructions and fails to act)