The Adoption of: G.T., Appeal of: A.T., father ( 2016 )

J-S92014-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
G.T., PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
APPEAL OF: A.T., NATURAL FATHER
No. 941 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree May 27, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 97 In Adoption 2015
BEFORE: SHOGAN, MOULTON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2016
Appellant, A.T. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered on May 27,
2016, in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas that terminated his
parental rights to his minor child G.T. (“Child”), born in March 2008. Upon
review, it is necessary to remand this matter to the orphans’ court for the
preparation of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
After the entry of the decree terminating Father’s parental rights on
May 27, 2016, Father filed a timely appeal.1 Contained within Father’s
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Father’s notice of appeal was due by June 26, 2016, which fell on a
Sunday. Father’s notice, filed the next day on June 27, 2016, therefore was
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S92014-16
notice of appeal was a statement of counsel’s intention to withdraw pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2 See In the Interest of
J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. Super. 2009) (applying Anders procedure and
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) to appeals involving the termination of parental rights).
On September 2, 2016, counsel filed an Anders brief, and on September 6,
2016, counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an amended petition on
September 26, 2016.
By letter dated July 13, 2016, the orphans’ court informed this Court
that it would not draft an opinion because counsel sought to withdraw.
Letter, 7/13/16. We caution that the filing of a statement of intent to
withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders and Pa.R.A.P.1925(c)(4) does not
relieve the orphans’ court of its duty to provide the rationale for its decision
under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2).
Due to the permanency of an order involuntarily terminating parental
rights, and because the orphans’ court’s rationale for termination under 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b) is cursory in the notes of testimony, 3 we are
constrained to remand for a thorough opinion. Accordingly, we remand this
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
timely filed. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (when thirtieth day of appeal period falls on a
Saturday or Sunday, those days are excluded from computation).
2
Anders sets forth the requirements for counsel to withdraw from
representation on direct appeal. See also Commonwealth v. Santiago,
978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).
3
N.T., 5/27/16, at 84–85.
-2-
J-S92014-16
case and direct the orphans’ court to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion
containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law forthwith. The
opinion shall be filed no later than thirty days from the date of this Judgment
Order.
Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.4
____________________________________________
4
Noting that Father has not filed a pro se response to the amended
application to withdraw as counsel, we will address counsel’s petition to
withdraw after remand. Accordingly, Kari A. Froess, Esquire, remains
Father’s counsel of record.
-3-