In Re: G.M.S., a minor, Appeal of: L.N.C.
193 A.3d 395
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Mother (L.N.C.) is biological parent of three children (born 2007, 2012, 2014); children were placed with maternal grandparents after repeated CYF interventions and shelter/dependency proceedings beginning in 2015.
- CYF filed petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights to all three children; termination hearings were held January 27, 2017; orders terminating Mother's rights entered January 30, 2017.
- Trial court found statutory grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) (Mother conceded (a)(2) was proven) and proceeded to the § 2511(b) best‑interest analysis.
- A guardian ad litem (GAL), who was an attorney, represented the children at the termination hearing and advocated for termination; the children (including an interview of the oldest) favored adoption by maternal grandparents.
- Expert testimony (Dr. Patricia Pepe) described chaotic interactions with Mother, weak or non‑beneficial bonding for two younger children, and recommended adoption by grandparents as serving children's best interests.
- The orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights, concluding adoption by maternal grandparents would provide permanence and stability outweighing any parental bond; Mother appealed arguing (1) lack of appointed counsel for children under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) and L.B.M., and (2) termination contrary to children's needs and welfare under § 2511(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (CYF/orphans' court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether children were entitled to appointed counsel separate from an attorney‑GAL under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) following In Re Adoption of L.B.M. | Mother: L.B.M. requires separate counsel for children in contested TPR; GAL representation by an attorney is insufficient. | Orphans' court/CYF: GAL who is an attorney may represent both legal and best interests so long as no conflict exists; here GAL advocated for termination consistent with children's wishes. | Court: No remand; under the Supreme Court split in L.B.M., GAL who is an attorney may serve as counsel absent a conflict; children’s legal and best interests aligned, so GAL representation was adequate. |
| Whether termination would serve children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) | Mother: Court overstated Mother’s faults, improperly relied on Dr. Pepe, and failed to evaluate harm of severing parental rights. | Orphans' court/CYF: Evidence (expert and observations) showed chaotic interactions, limited parent–child bonds for younger children, strong attachments to grandparents, and that adoption would provide permanence and stability. | Court: Affirmed termination under § 2511(b); stability and permanency through adoption outweighed parental bond concerns. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by accepting expert testimony and weighing bonds | Mother: Expert reliance and credibility determinations were erroneous. | Orphans' court: Court credited expert testimony and direct observations; appellate court must defer to trial court credibility findings. | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly credited expert and factual findings. |
| Whether Mother’s progress or future potential should delay permanency | Mother: Termination prematurely forecloses rehabilitation. | Orphans' court/CYF: Children’s need for stability cannot be subordinated indefinitely to speculative parental improvement. | Court: Denied; permanence prioritized and court may refuse to hold child’s life in abeyance pending parental progress. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in TPR cases)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (§ 2511(b) best‑interest framework and bond analysis)
- In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (consideration of safety, stability, and continuity alongside parental bond)
- In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors in evaluating parent–child bond and best interests)
- In re Bosley, 26 A.3d 1104 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court discretion to accept or reject expert testimony)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanency outweighs indefinite delay for parental progress)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parental incapacity and inability to remedy relevant to best‑interest analysis)
- In re E.F.H., 751 A.2d 1186 (Pa. Super. 2000) (child’s right to counsel belongs to the child and cannot be waived by parent)
- In re Adoption of G.K.T., 75 A.3d 521 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing child’s right to counsel in dependency/TPR proceedings)