In the Interest of: S.U., a Minor Appeal of: R.U.
888 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- The juvenile court granted the Agency’s petition for temporary custody of a child and set shelter and dependency hearings in April–May 2017.
- The trial court’s April 12, 2017 order appointed counsel for Mother and Father only for the first scheduled hearing and included a written notice explaining that continued representation required the parent to contact the Office of Bail Administration to request court‑appointed counsel.
- A shelter hearing was continued and later held on April 18, 2017; Father did not appear and counsel who had been appointed for the first hearing was permitted to withdraw because the appointment was limited to that hearing.
- The court’s withdrawal notice advised Father how to re‑qualify for counsel for subsequent hearings; Father remained unrepresented and did not appear at the May 2, 2017 dependency hearing.
- The appellate majority concluded the trial court erred by failing to ascertain whether Father knew of his right to counsel and the procedure to obtain court‑appointed counsel; Judge Strassburger dissented, arguing the written notice and prior case law made the court’s actions proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not affirmatively ascertaining Father’s knowledge of his right to counsel before proceeding in his absence | Father (appellant/majority) argued the court must determine whether he knew of his right to counsel and that counsel would be provided if he could not afford one | Trial court / dissent argued written notice explaining the limited appointment and how to obtain continued counsel satisfied the statutory and case law requirements; failure to request counsel is a waiver | Majority found error for not ascertaining awareness; dissent concluded notice sufficed and no abuse of discretion in proceeding |
| Whether written notice that counsel was appointed only for the first hearing and instructions to re‑apply for counsel thereafter satisfies the Juvenile Act / §2313(a.1) requirement | Father argued written notice alone was insufficient to ensure meaningful access to counsel | Dissent argued prior precedent (e.g., In re J.N.F.) supports that written notice and instruction to petition for counsel are sufficient and a parent waives counsel by not petitioning | Split: majority rejected sufficiency of the notice in this case; dissent defended sufficiency under controlling precedents |
| Whether the court may proceed with dependency proceedings in a parent’s absence when the record shows service of notice and instructions to secure counsel | Father argued proceedings should not proceed until the court ensures parent understands right to counsel | Court/dissent argued a parent who receives notice and fails to seek appointed counsel waives the right and proceedings may continue | Majority required further judicial inquiry; dissent found no abuse in proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2009) (recognizing constitutional right to counsel in involuntary termination/parental rights cases)
- In re Adoption of R.I., 312 A.2d 601 (Pa. 1973) (supreme court decision establishing necessity of counsel for indigent parents in termination proceedings)
- In re Adoption of C.A.S., 166 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2017) (holding courts need not appoint counsel automatically; parents must be advised to petition for counsel)
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreting §2313(a.1) to require parent request for court‑appointed counsel once notified)
- In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding written notice in the petition was sufficient to inform indigent, incarcerated father how to obtain appointed counsel; failure to request counsel constitutes waiver)