In the Interest of: J.M.T., a minor
In the Interest of: J.M.T., a minor No. 2058 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Mother J.T. appeals from decrees terminating her parental rights to N.N.T., J.M.T., and K.R.T., with counsel seeking leave to withdraw under Anders.
- CYS filed involuntary-termination petitions for the three Children, alleging lack of contact since Jan 2016 and no parental duties since then; children in CYS care since Dec 2014.
- A hearing occurred on Nov 16, 2016; Mother waived notice of a voluntary relinquishment; trial court accepted the voluntary relinquishment as knowing, voluntary, and voluntary.
- Jones, a CYS caseworker, testified that the children are in pre-adoptive homes and would benefit from permanency; bonds with pre-adoptive parents are stronger than with Mother.
- Appellate counsel’s Anders-compliant withdrawal prompted independent review; the court concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and affirmed the decrees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother's voluntary relinquishment was intelligent and voluntary | Mother relinquished knowingly. | Trial court erred in accepting relinquishment as voluntary. | Relinquishment found intelligent, voluntary, deliberate. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under 2511(b) | Termination servesChildren's best interests. | Preserve parental rights; bond with Mother matters. | Termination in Children’s best interests; pre-adoptive placements with permanency. |
| Whether CYS acted properly in seeking termination | CYS had valid grounds due to lack of contact and noncompliance. | CYS overreached or acted improperly. | CYS acted with proper grounds based on six-month non-performance and noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Anders withdrawal standards applied to parental-rights appeal)
- In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Anders brief requirements; independent review of record required)
- Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2005) (must attach client-rights advisement letter to withdrawal petition)
- In re M.L.O., 416 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1980) (consent to terminate must be intelligent, voluntary and deliberate)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond analysis may rely on social workers; no expert required)