In the Matter of B.W.E., minor, Appeal of: A.A.P.
293 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Father and stepmother filed a petition for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights; Mother was personally served with the petition.
- Termination hearing occurred; Mother did not appear; court entered a decree terminating her parental rights and Mother appealed pro se.
- Mother’s appellate contention: she lacked proper notice of adjournments (wrong address used), so her nonappearance deprived her of due process.
- Mother failed to file the concise statement of errors with the notice of appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) for children’s fast-track appeals. The trial court later ordered a 21‑day extension to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, but Mother still did not file one.
- The trial court concluded the issues were waived for failure to file the concise statement and declined to issue a 1925(a) opinion; the Superior Court affirmed the termination decree on waiver grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother was deprived of due process because she did not receive proper notice of adjournments and thus did not appear at the termination hearing | Mother: notices of adjournment were sent to an incorrect address (109 Welsh St. vs. 30 Birch St.); she did not receive notice and therefore lacked due process | Petitioners/Trial Court: Mother failed to preserve the issue by not filing the required concise statement under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i); waiver applies | The court held the issue waived for Mother’s complete failure to comply with Rule 1925(a)(2)(i); affirmed the termination decree |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (explaining defective notice of appeal in children’s fast-track cases and case-by-case waiver analysis)
- Durning v. Balent/Kurdilla, 19 A.3d 1125 (refusing to find waiver where appellee did not object and no prejudice resulted)
- J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (finding waiver for failure to comply with court‑ordered Rule 1925(b) deadline)
- J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 A.3d 902 (declining to find waiver where untimely statement caused no prejudice and court addressed issues)
- In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1 (noting entitlement to appointed counsel in termination proceedings upon petition and indigency determination)
- In re A.R., 125 A.3d 420 (appointment of counsel in termination proceedings is not automatic; parent must petition)
- Rich v. Acrivos, 815 A.2d 1106 (pro se litigants receive liberal construction but are not entitled to special advantage)