Matter of Adoption of: J.R.L. minor Appeal of S.L. ( 2018 )

J-S13044-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF: J.R.L., A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.L. AND M.L. : No. 1630 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Dated September 28, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County,
Orphans’ Court at No(s): No: 2017-217A
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2018
S.L. and M.L. (“Appellants”) appeal the Order denying their Petition to
involuntarily terminate the parental rights of D.L. (“Mother”) to her son, J.R.L.
(“Child”), so that Appellants may adopt him.1 We vacate and remand.
The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history
of this appeal as follows:
On September [ ], 2011, Mother gave birth to [Child] while
incarcerated in Cambridge Springs State Correctional Institution.
Rather than placing [Child] in the foster care system, Mother
entrusted [Child] to [Appellants’2] care until her release, through
____________________________________________
1 Child’s father is unknown. Notice of the termination proceedings was
published, but no man has come forth as Child’s father, and the father is listed
as “the unknown father.” Thus, Child’s father is not a party to this appeal.
2 Cambridge Springs State Correctional Institution runs a program that allows
incarcerated pregnant mothers to place their child with an Amish family while
in prison. As part of the placement, mothers sign a power of attorney granting
the Amish families physical custody of child on a temporary basis until the
mother is released from prison. In this case, Appellants, an Amish couple,
took part in the program and exercised physical custody of Child.
J-S13044-18
the use of a program at the correctional facility and a power of
attorney. Mother’s incarceration ended in 2013, and [Appellants]
relinquished [Child] back into Mother’s custody. Some time later,
Mother was again incarcerated, and [Child] was cared for by
Mother’s parents. While the exact date is disputed, it is
undisputed that Mother’s family returned [Child] to [Appellants]
during Mother’s second period of incarceration. No new power of
attorney was executed. [Child] has remained with [Appellants]
since that time. According to Mother, she attempted to contact
[Child] during her second incarceration. On April 20, 2017,
[Appellants] filed [an] action to terminate Mother’s parental rights
and adopt [Child] themselves. At that time, Mother was
incarcerated, but[,] on April 26, 2017, Mother was released. She
immediately attempted to retrieve [Child] from [Appellants].
However, they would not relinquish custody of [Child] to her.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/16/17, at 1-2 (footnote added).
On September 28, 2017, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on
the termination Petition.3 At the hearing, Appellants were present and
represented by counsel. Mother, pro se, was present via telephone. Notably,
Child was not present and the trial court did not appoint legal counsel or a
guardian ad litem on behalf of Child.
After hearing evidence, the trial court entered the Order denying the
____________________________________________
3The hearing was continued on several occasions because of issues regarding
notice to Mother and the unknown father of Child.
-2-
J-S13044-18
Petition on September 28, 2017.4 Attorney Nicholas R. Sabatine, III, entered
his appearance as counsel for Mother on October 3, 2017.5 The trial court did
not appoint counsel for Child or a guardian ad litem with regard to the appeal.
On October 27, 2017, Appellants filed a timely Notice of Appeal, and a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement.
On appeal, Appellants raise the following questions for our review:
1. Did the trial court err in failing to appoint counsel to [Child]
in a contested adoption?
2. Did the trial court err in determining that Appellants did not
have standing to file for involuntary termination of parental
rights?
3. Did the trial court err in failing to perform fact[-]finding?
4. Did the trial court err in failing to take the welfare of [C]hild
into consideration?
Brief for Appellants at 2 (numbers added, issues reordered).
____________________________________________
4 The trial court did not provide an explanation for its decision in its Order
denying the termination Petition, nor did it accompany the Order with an
opinion. Nevertheless, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court
determined that because Mother temporarily entrusted Child to Appellants and
did not consent to permanent placement of Child with Appellants, the
Appellants did not have an in loco parentis relationship with Child and thus,
lacked standing to terminate Mother’s parental rights. See Trial Court
Opinion, 11/16/17, at 2-4.
5 Mother has not sought to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has she requested
the appointment of counsel. Rather, she retained private counsel for this
appeal.
-3-
J-S13044-18
Appellants initially contend that the trial court erred in failing to appoint
Child counsel pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a). Id. at 9. Appellants point
out that the trial court acknowledged this failure in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion.
Id.
Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a), a child has a statutory right to counsel
in a contested involuntary termination of parental rights proceeding:
(a) Child.--The court shall appoint counsel to represent the child
in an involuntary termination proceeding when the proceeding is
being contested by one or both of the parents. The court may
appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem to represent any child who
has not reached the age of 18 years and is subject to any other
proceeding under this part whenever it is in the best interests of
the child. No attorney or law firm shall represent both the child
and the adopting parent or parents.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a). A “proceeding” is defined as “[t]he regular and
orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the
time of commencement and the entry of judgment.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
1241 (8th ed. 2004); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5402 (defining “[c]hild custody
proceeding” as “[a] proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody or
visitation with respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding
for … termination of parental rights ….”).
In a plurality decision, our Supreme Court held that under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2313(a), courts must appoint counsel to represent the legal interest of a
child in a contested involuntary termination proceeding. In re Adoption of
L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 179-80 (Pa. 2017). Three members of the Court held
that a child’s legal interests cannot be represented by his or her guardian ad
-4-
J-S13044-18
litem and requires the appointment of separate counsel. Id. at 180-82; see
also id. at 174 (noting that a child’s best interests are distinct from his/her
legal interests). However, the majority of the Court concluded that counsel
may serve both as the guardian ad litem, representing the child’s best
interests, and as the child’s counsel, representing the child’s legal interests,
as long as there is no conflict between the child’s legal and best interests. Id.
at 183-93; see also In re D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322, 329 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(stating that “separate representation would be required only if the child’s
best interest and legal interests were somehow in conflict.”).
Recently, this Court held that the failure to appoint legal counsel to a
child in a contested involuntary termination of parental rights proceeding is
structural error. See In re K.J.H., 180 A.3d 411, 413 (Pa. Super. 2018); see
also id. (stating that “[a] structural error is defined as one that affects the
framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the
trial process itself.”) (citation omitted). As a result, where the termination
proceeding is contested, the issue of the failure to appoint counsel for child
may be raised sua sponte, and the case must be remanded for appointment
of counsel. See id. at 413-14; accord In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 2018
PA Super 87, *2 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Here, Mother contested Appellants’ Petition to terminate her parental
rights. Thus, the trial court was mandated to appoint Child counsel. See In
re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 2018 PA Super 87 at *2 (noting that
-5-
J-S13044-18
“[a]ppointment of counsel representing the child is mandatory, and failure to
do so is legal error.”); In re Adoption of G.K.T., 75 A.3d 521, 527 (Pa.
Super. 2013) (stating that the court “committed reversible error in failing to
appoint a counsel for the [c]hild as required by section 2313(a).”); see also
Trial Court Opinion, 11/16/17, at 4 (recognizing that the trial court did not
appoint Child counsel). While the trial court ultimately denied the termination
Petition based upon Appellants’ lack of standing, the statute and L.B.M. clearly
state that counsel must be appointed in an involuntary termination
proceeding. Thus, the obligation to appoint child counsel under section
2313(a) is triggered when a termination petition is filed and a parent has
contested the petition. We cannot consider the trial court’s final determination
where it would circumvent this mandate. See, e.g., In re K.J.H., 180 A.3d
at 413-14 (stating that the failure to appoint counsel to the child pursuant to
section 2313(a) was a structural error and required remand for appointment
of counsel, despite the fact that grandparents’ petition to terminate mother’s
parental rights had been denied); In re Adoption of G.K.T., 75 A.3d at 527-
28 (concluding that failure to appoint the child counsel under section 2313(a)
required reversal of order granting adoptive couple’s petition to terminate
father’s parental rights). Based upon this legal error, we are constrained to
vacate the Order on appeal, and remand the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings, prior to which the court shall appoint legal counsel to
represent Child and a separate guardian ad litem to represent Child’s best
-6-
J-S13044-18
interests, if it is determined to be necessary by the trial court. See L.B.M.,
161 A.3d at 183-93; In re D.L.B., 166 A.3d at 329.6, 7
Order vacated; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this Memorandum, with instructions that the trial court shall appoint legal
counsel to represent Child, and a separate guardian ad litem to represent
Child’s best interests, if necessary, to review the matter and participate in any
new termination hearing. Jurisdiction relinquished.
____________________________________________
6 We note that in In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., this Court, after determining
that a child was deprived of his statutory right to counsel, stated the following:
Upon remand, the court shall appoint separate counsel for [c]hild
to represent his legal interests. After review of the prior
proceedings and appropriate consultation with [c]hild, [c]hild’s
legal-interests counsel shall notify the orphans’ court whether the
result of the prior proceedings is consistent with [c]hild’s legal
interests or whether counsel believes a new hearing is necessary
to provide counsel an opportunity to advocate on [c]hild’s behalf.
The orphans’ court shall conduct a new hearing only if it serves
the “substantive purpose” of providing [c]hild with an opportunity
to advance his legal interests through his new counsel.
In re Adoption of T.M.L.M., 2018 PA Super 87 at *4 (footnotes omitted).
The Court further concluded that if a new hearing is not held, the trial court
could reenter its original order. Id. at *5. Based upon this precedent, upon
remand, the trial court shall appoint Child counsel to represent his legal and
best interests. Counsel will then have the opportunity to review the prior
proceedings and notify the trial court as to whether new proceedings are
required. If the trial court decides a new hearing is not required, it is free to
reenter its original Order. See id.
7 Based upon our disposition, we need not address Appellants’ remaining
claims.
-7-
J-S13044-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/25/2018
-8-