In Re: A.C., Appeal of: Somerset County CYS

J-A07014-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: A.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: SOMERSET COUNTY
CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES
No. 1420 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order July 21, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 14 Adoption 2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 11, 2015
I join the Majority. However, I write separately to distance myself
from the Majority’s conclusion that the orphans’ court abused its discretion
by denying CYS’s petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother and
Father.
When the trial court entered its order on July 24, 2014, it did so in
reliance on this Court’s decision in In re D.C.D., 91 A.3d 173, 179 (Pa.
Super. 2014), which our Supreme Court reversed on December 15, 2014.
In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014). The trial court decided this matter
according to then-existing law, and therefore, I do not believe that it abused
its discretion. Rather, we remand because “a new rule of law is applied
retroactively so that a party whose case is pending on direct appeal is
entitled to the benefit of changes in the law.” Walnut Street Associates v.
Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 20 A.3d 468, 479 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).