In the Interest of: J.J.L., a Minor
412 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Child J.J.L., born July 2014, was placed in Dauphin County CYS custody August 2014 after hospital concerns about Mother’s ability to care for the infant and concerns about her intellectual disabilities.
- A safety plan placed the parents with paternal grandparents as 24‑hour caregivers; Agency’s parenting educator worked one‑on‑one with Mother and concluded she could not learn needed skills within the safety plan period.
- Child was adjudicated dependent August 27, 2014; Mother was ordered to obtain psychological/IQ testing (she scored in the mild intellectual disability range, IQ ~54) and to participate in reunification services and parenting programs.
- Mother initially consented to adoption in August/September 2015, then revoked consent in October 2015; the Agency changed goal to adoption and later filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b)).
- After hearings in January–February 2016 and stipulated prior testimony, the Orphans’ Court granted the Agency’s petition and terminated Mother’s parental rights; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and sought leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Agency/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA required Agency to modify policies/practices to accommodate Mother’s intellectual disability, and whether failure deprived her of meaningful access to reunification services | Mother contends Agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA, denying equal access and affecting the termination outcome | Agency (and court) argue ADA claims are not a proper basis to challenge a termination under the Adoption Act; Agency also points to accommodations provided (one‑on‑one instruction, simplified service plan review, referrals) | Court held ADA is not applicable to termination proceedings under the Adoption Act; any ADA claims should be pursued separately; record showed Agency made accommodations in any event — claim denied |
| Whether Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to enable timely reunification | Mother argues Agency did not make reasonable efforts tailored to her disability | Agency argues reasonable‑efforts doctrine does not bar termination under the controlling precedents and that it provided services and referrals | Court held reasonable‑efforts argument does not preclude termination (citing controlling precedent); claim rejected |
| Whether appointed counsel properly withdrew under Anders | Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting appeal frivolous and followed required procedures; Mother was notified | Court must independently review record for non‑frivolous issues | Court granted counsel’s petition to withdraw after independent review found appeal wholly frivolous and no other non‑frivolous issues |
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 | Mother contested credibility and sufficiency given her disability | Agency relied on dependency history, evaluations, services, Mother’s inability to meet irreducible parental responsibilities | Court’s independent review found no non‑frivolous sufficiency claims and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (order is not appealable until entered on docket with notation of required notice)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal frivolous)
- In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. 1999) (ADA not applicable to dispositional review under the Juvenile Act where child’s best interests govern)
- In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders principles to termination of parental rights appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural requirements for counsel’s petition to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief content)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable‑efforts requirement does not bar termination under Section 6351(f))