In the Interest of: S.T.C., a Minor
1332 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Mother (S.L.C.) executed voluntary relinquishments of parental rights to five children in October–December 2016 while represented by counsel; DHS filed the consents and a hearing was held March 23, 2017.
- Some children had been adjudicated dependent in 2014–2015 after referrals to DHS and in‑home services through Catholic Social Services (CUA).
- Mother later sought to revoke her consents, alleging she signed under duress and threats by a CUA caseworker.
- The caseworker (Tracy McNair) testified Mother appeared sober, understood the documents, consulted her attorney before signing, and that he neither pressured nor promised her anything.
- Mother did not file a written revocation within the 30‑day statutory period nor a timely fraud/duress petition within 60 days as required by the Adoption Act.
- The trial court found Mother’s consent intelligent, voluntary, and deliberate, accepted the relinquishments, terminated parental rights, and changed the children’s permanency goals to adoption; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother could revoke consent to termination signed >30 days before hearing, claiming duress | Mother contends she signed under duress/threats and sought to revoke consent | DHS argues consent was voluntary, Mother did not file the required written revocation within 30 days or a fraud/duress petition within statutory period | Court held statute controls: consent irrevocable after 30 days absent timely written revocation or timely fraud/duress petition; Mother failed to comply, so relinquishments were valid |
| Whether consent was intelligent, voluntary, and deliberate | Mother alleges coercion by CUA caseworker rendered consent invalid | DHS and witness testimony show Mother was competent, understood the documents, consulted counsel, and was not pressured | Court found testimony credible that consent was intelligent, voluntary, deliberate and therefore valid |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in crediting caseworker’s testimony | Mother implies credibility finding was erroneous | DHS points to uncontradicted testimony and Mother’s failure to act in writing or through counsel | Court deferred to trial court credibility findings and found no abuse of discretion |
| Whether statutory challenge window (fraud/duress) was satisfied | Mother argues she raised duress at hearing and should be permitted to revoke | DHS asserts Mother did not timely file a petition under §2711 and did not follow statutory procedure | Court held statutory time/pleading requirements are mandatory; Mother did not meet them, so challenge failed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for termination and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Susko Adoption Case, 69 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1949) (parental consent to adoption must be intelligent, voluntary, and deliberate)
- Chambers Appeal, 305 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1973) (consent validity principles in adoption law)
- In re Fritz, 333 A.2d 466 (Pa. 1975) (standards for consenting to adoption)
- In re Adoption of J.A.S., 939 A.2d 403 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory timelines for revocation and challenges to consents under §2711)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)