In Re Adoption of L.J.B.
18 A.3d 1098
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Child L.J.B. was born to unwed parents C.L.F. and S.M.B.; Mother initially had custody but moved to Tennessee in 2006 after persistent disputed pelvic examinations of the child.
- Father and Stepmother sought to adopt L.J.B. and petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights in December 2008.
- Orphans’ Court found abandonment under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) based on six-plus months of no contact after Mother moved, and terminated Mother's rights with Stepmother to adopt.
- Mother appealed to Superior Court; during appeal, Judge Miller received post-decree letters suggesting Stepmother may not pursue adoption, creating potential mootness.
- This Court vacated the termination decree and remanded for an evidentiary mootness hearing concerning Stepmother’s adoption intentions and whether a new judge should hear future proceedings.
- Court also sua sponte ordered all further proceedings involving L.J.B. to be conducted by a new judge from a different judicial district due to appearance of impropriety with Judges Williamson and Miller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Mother's rights was warranted under 2511(a) and (b) | Mother argues obstruction by Father and lack of bond negate termination. | Father/Stepmother contend abandonment as six-month no-contact supports termination. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on mootness; not definitively resolved on merits. |
| Whether the case is moot due to Stepmother’s adoption status | Mother asserts mootness because Stepmother might not adopt. | Stepmother’s adoption status remained unsettled; mootness not established. | Remand to determine mootness; disposition depends on Stepmother’s adoption intent. |
| Whether Judges Williamson and Miller should be recused from further proceedings | Appearances of impropriety warrant fresh tribunal to protect child’s interests. | No explicit bias proven; remand could suffice. | Remand to assign proceedings to a new jurist from a different district. |
| Whether post-decree letters could influence the merits on appeal | Letters suggest changed circumstances affecting adoption plans. | Letters were not docketed as formal filings; not proper basis for remand on mootness. | Court considered but ultimately based on merits, remand for mootness; letters do not control outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.E., 377 A.2d 153 (Pa. 1977) (termination of parental rights linked to plan for adoption; adopted child welfare policy)
- Adoption of J.D.S., 763 A.2d 867 (Pa.Super. 2000) (two-step termination before adoption; stability of new family unit)
- In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977) (adoption-focused termination requires contemplation of adoption by others)
- In re Bowman, 666 A.2d 274 (Pa. 1995) (totality of circumstances in termination analysis; obstructive conduct factors)
- In re D.J.Y., 408 A.2d 1387 (Pa. 1979) (reasonable attempts to overcome obstacles; not automatically terminates parental rights)