In re Adoption of G.K.T.
75 A.3d 521
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Child born Aug. 2011; mother (P.W.) voluntarily relinquished and consented to adoption by K.L.W. and L.M.W. (Adoptive Couple). Father (G.T.) is biological father.
- Mother and Father had an unstable, abusive relationship; Father showed little interest in the infant and moved to Michigan months after birth.
- Adoptive Couple filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights and to adopt on Feb. 3, 2012; hearings held Aug. 17 and Dec. 18, 2012.
- Orphans’ court entered decrees terminating Father’s rights and approving adoption on Dec. 21, 2012. Father appealed.
- On appeal Father argued (inter alia) the orphans’ court failed to appoint counsel for the child as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) and that venue in Centre County was improper under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2302.
- Supreme Court (panel) vacated both decrees and remanded, holding the failure to appoint counsel for the child was reversible error under In re E.F.H., and that venue in Centre County was improper because Father did not consent and the county had no connection to the parties or the child.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Adoptive Couple / Orphans’ Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to appoint counsel for the child under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) | Orphans’ court erred; child entitled to appointed counsel when proceeding contested by a parent | Error waived / harmless because child was an infant and could not communicate | Reversible error: §2313(a) is mandatory; counsel must be appointed and failure required vacation of decrees |
| Validity of adoption decree given defective termination | Termination decree defective, so adoption decree must be vacated | Adoption may stand if error harmless | Vacated adoption decree because termination decree vacated due to counsel/venue errors |
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) | (Argued) Adoptive Couple failed to prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence | Orphans’ court found facts supporting termination | Court did not decide on merits (declined to reach due to dispositive procedural errors) |
| Venue under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2302 (Centre County) | Centre County venue was improper; Father did not consent and county had no connection to case | Mother and Adoptive Couple consented; statute uses permissive "may" language | Venue error; preliminary objection should have been sustained and matter transferred; failure requires vacatur/remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.F.H., 751 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. 2000) (failure to appoint counsel for child in contested termination is reversible error)
- In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for termination appeals; appellate deference to orphans’ court factfinding)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (discussion of appellate standard and deference in dependency/termination matters)
- In re Adoption of N.A.G., 471 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 1984) (appointment error held harmless where court later appointed counsel and directed investigation)