In the Int. of: S.D., Appeal of: J.D. and C.T.
2021 Pa. Super. 126
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Two minor daughters, S.D. (b. June 2015) and L.D. (b. May 2016), were adjudicated dependent in May 2017 after neglect and parents' arrests; initial permanency goal was reunification.
- On November 6, 2019, the trial court changed the children’s permanency goal to adoption on the dependency dockets.
- CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on February 11, 2020; the termination matters were placed on the adoption dockets and hearings occurred in Aug–Sep 2020.
- On October 16, 2020 the trial court entered termination orders (23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b)) and maintained the goal-change order on the dependency dockets.
- Parents filed joint notices of appeal on November 12, 2020 that listed both the adoption and dependency docket numbers; this Court consolidated the appeals but issued a rule to show cause about the single notice.
- The Superior Court concluded parents’ single notices violated Pa.R.A.P. 341 as clarified by Commonwealth v. Walker, rejected breakdown-in-court-process exceptions, and quashed the appeals without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYS proved statutory grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2),(5),(8) | CYS failed to present clear and convincing evidence to satisfy § 2511(a) grounds | Trial court found CYS met statutory criteria | Appeal quashed on procedural ground; merits not reached |
| Whether termination serves child's needs and welfare under § 2511(b) | Trial court erred and abused discretion; insufficient evidence on best interests | Trial court had evidence supporting conclusion under § 2511(b) | Appeal quashed on procedural ground; merits not reached |
| Whether CYS made reasonable reunification efforts before filing termination petitions | CYS failed to make reasonable efforts (argued under Juvenile Act) | Agency contends adequate efforts were made; also this challenge implicates dependency goal change | Court treated this as a challenge to the goal-change order on the dependency docket and held separate appeal required; appeal quashed |
| Whether single notice of appeal listing both dependency and adoption dockets was proper under Pa.R.A.P. 341/Walker | Parents said they only intended to appeal termination and inclusion of dependency dockets was error | Walker requires separate notices when orders resolve issues on different dockets; no breakdown in court operations here | Court held Rule 341/Walke r controlling and quashed appeals for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (requires separate notices of appeal when an order resolves issues on more than one docket)
- In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applied Walker to require separate appeals for dependency and adoption docket challenges)
- In the Interest of K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (declined to quash where trial court misled appellant about appellate procedure; discussed exceptions for court-process breakdown)
- Commonwealth v. Larkin, 235 A.3d 350 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (recognized court-process breakdown can excuse Walker noncompliance if misinformation by court occurred)
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa. Super. 2009) (favored overlooking technical defects in fast-track children's appeals when no prejudice results)