In the Interest of: J.R.M., a Minor, 782 MDA 2017

Background

Children (born 2007 and 2013) were placed with maternal aunt by Luzerne County CYS on March 25, 2015 due to parents’ substance use and housing concerns.
On December 13, 2016 Mother signed consent-to-adopt documents, a voluntary relinquishment colloquy, and an acknowledgment at the CYS office; court-appointed counsel (Wojtowicz) was not present.
Mother did not revoke consent within 30 days and did not file fraud/duress challenges within statutory periods; CYS filed petitions to confirm consent on March 13, 2017.
New counsel was appointed for Mother only shortly before the April 12, 2017 confirmation hearing (and was initially misappointed for Father); Mother had minimal contact with new counsel prior to the hearing.
The orphans’ court confirmed Mother’s consent and terminated parental rights on April 12, 2017; Mother appealed.
The Superior Court vacated the decrees, holding Mother lacked effective assistance of counsel during the critical statutory period and that her consent could not be regarded as knowing, voluntary, and deliberate.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYS/Orphans’ Court Argument	Held
Validity of Mother’s December 13 consent to adoption	Consent invalid because Mother lacked effective counsel when she signed and during the 30–60 day revocation/challenge windows	Consent was valid; Mother had opportunity to revoke and did not do so	Vacated confirmation: consent not shown to be knowing/voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel
Whether Mother received effective assistance of counsel during statutory revocation/challenge period	Wojtowicz was unavailable (vacation, then retired); Mother tried to contact him and could not obtain advice; new counsel appointed too late	Orphans’ court found Mother failed to show she tried to contact counsel for purposes of revocation and that absence of counsel did not invalidate consent	Held for Mother: record shows she was effectively without counsel and that counsel’s ineffectiveness likely caused the termination outcome
Timeliness of statutory challenges (30-day revocation; 60-day fraud/duress pleading)	Mother argues ineffective assistance prevented meaningful exercise of statutory rights within the periods	CYS argued Mother did not revoke or timely challenge as required by statute	Superior Court considered timeliness but concluded ineffective counsel excused the lack of effective exercise; vacated decrees
Reliance on involuntary termination standard (Section 2511)	N/A — Mother’s case proceeded as confirmation of consent under §2504	Orphans’ court additionally analyzed under §2511(b)	Superior Court found §2511(b) analysis irrelevant because proceeding was confirmation under §2504; outcome decided on counsel effectiveness and consent validity

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co., 889 A.2d 563 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statutory interpretation standard)
In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate review and statutory construction)
Cimino v. Valley Family Medicine, 912 A.2d 851 (Pa. Super. 2006) (rules of statutory interpretation)
Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2005) (statutory construction guidance)
Commonwealth v. Diakatos, 708 A.2d 510 (Pa. Super. 1998) (interpretive principles)
In re Adoption of J.A.S., 939 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Adoption Act framework)
In re Adoption of R.I., 312 A.2d 601 (Pa. 1973) (indigent parent’s constitutional right to counsel in termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of T.M.F., 573 A.2d 1035 (Pa. Super. 1990) (right to effective assistance of counsel; claim reviewed on direct appeal)
In the Interest of S.W., 781 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2001) (counsel effectiveness in parental termination context)
In the Interest of J.T., 983 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims in parental-termination cases)
Matter of Christopher P., 389 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1978) (consent must be knowing, voluntary, deliberate)
In re Adoption of Stickley, 638 A.2d 976 (Pa. Super. 1994) (termination is drastic and not lightly taken)
In re K.D., 871 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 2005) (showing counsel’s ineffectiveness must be cause of termination outcome)