In the Interest of: J.J.L., a Minor
150 A.3d 475
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Mother (B.B.L.) has mild intellectual disability (IQ ~54) and Child (born July 2014) was placed in Agency custody in August 2014 after concerns about parents’ ability to provide basic infant care.
- A Safety Plan had Child living with paternal grandparents as 24-hour caregivers; Agency parenting educator concluded Mother could not learn required skills in time.
- Child was adjudicated dependent (Aug 2014); court-ordered psychological evaluation confirmed Mother’s intellectual disability and parenting-risk scores; Agency established a reunification plan with specific objectives.
- Mother received some individualized accommodations (one-on-one instruction, simplified service-plan review, referrals to IU-13 and reunification services) but later signed a consent to adoption, then revoked it; Agency filed involuntary termination petition (Nov 2015).
- Trial court held hearings (Jan–Feb 2016) and terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); Mother appealed and counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw as appeal frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA bars termination because Agency failed to modify policies/practices to accommodate Mother’s disability | Mother: Agency failed to modify services under ADA, depriving her meaningful access and equal opportunity to reunify | Agency/State: ADA claims not properly raised to defeat termination; services were reasonably accommodated and ADA claim belongs in separate suit | Court: ADA not applicable to Adoption Act termination proceedings here; even on merits Agency made accommodations; claim fails |
| Whether Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify (denying due process) | Mother: Agency did not make reasonable efforts to enable timely reunification given her disability | Agency: Reasonable-efforts requirement is not a bar to termination under section applicable here; Agency made efforts and provided accommodations | Court: Claim without merit; Supreme Court precedent holds lack of reasonable efforts does not preclude termination; record shows accommodations and efforts |
| Adequacy of appointed counsel’s Anders brief and request to withdraw | Mother (implicitly): Counsel shouldn’t withdraw if non-frivolous issues exist | Counsel: After conscientious review, appeal is frivolous; complied with Anders/Millisock/Santiago requirements | Court: Counsel met Anders requirements; independent review found appeal wholly frivolous; withdrawal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113 (Pa. 1999) (order appealability requires docket entry with notice)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal frivolous)
- In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. 1999) (ADA inapplicable to Juvenile Act dispositional review; child’s best interests prevail)
- In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable-efforts requirement does not bar termination under certain statutory provisions)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders brief accompanying motion to withdraw)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (procedural requirements for counsel seeking withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court’s independent review following Anders filing)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (independent review standard for alleged overlooked issues)