In Re: Adoption of: L.B.M., A Minor
In Re: Adoption of: L.B.M., A Minor - No. 84 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Appeals from Franklin County Orphans’ Court orders terminating parental rights to two minors; Superior Court affirmed. Mother (J.P.) appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Chief Justice Saylor filed a concurring opinion.
- Central procedural fact: the trial court allowed termination proceedings to proceed with the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) as the only attorney representing the children, and did not appoint separate counsel to represent the children’s legal interests.
- The statutory framework at issue is Section 2313(a) (appointment of counsel in termination proceedings and discretionary appointment of a GAL).
- Majority held the trial court erred by failing to appoint independent counsel; the concurrence agrees a court must appoint counsel but disputes a categorical rule barring a GAL from also serving as counsel.
- Concurring view (Saylor, joined by Todd): the propriety of one person serving as both GAL and counsel should be determined case-by-case under conflict-of-interest analysis; a per se prohibition is too rigid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must appoint counsel separate from a guardian ad litem in parental termination proceedings | J.P.: Trial court failed to appoint required counsel for the children; appointment of GAL alone is insufficient | Trial court (and respondents): GAL’s appointment sufficed; counsel appointment was optional or unnecessary here | Court: A court must appoint counsel to advocate the child’s legal interests; failure to do so was error |
| Whether a GAL may also serve as the child’s counsel (categorical rule) | J.P.: Implicitly, separate counsel protects the child’s legal interests from GAL’s best‑interest advocacy | Respondents: Same individual can serve both roles (trial court practice) | Concurrence (Saylor): Disagrees with majority’s per se prohibition; permits dual service only if no actual/potential conflict under conflict-of-interest analysis; majority adopted a categorical rule (court must distinguish roles and appoint counsel) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 567 Pa. 310, 787 A.2d 292 (conflict-of-interest analysis and prejudice assessment)
- Commonwealth v. King, 618 Pa. 405, 57 A.3d 607 (discussing conflict-of-interest effects on right to counsel)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (concerns about counsel altering strategy due to other loyalties)