J-S13041-16
2016 PA Super 112
IN RE: C.M.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: C.L.C., MOTHER No. 1432 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Decree Entered August 18, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2015 AD 32 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* CONCURRING OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2016 I agree that Mother’s consent to terminate her parental rights was invalid under the Adoption Act. Mother did not petition the court to relinquish her rights, either pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2501(a) (Relinquishment to agency), or 23 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a) (Relinquishment to adult intending to adopt child), and BCCYF’s petition for involuntary termination, did not satisfy Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules 15.2(a)(8), (9). Further, as the Majority notes, by converting the hearing on the involuntary petition to a voluntary termination hearing, the court deprived Mother of the ten-day waiting period, and there is no indication that the court explained this to Mother or that Mother waived that waiting period. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2503(a). ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S13041-16 I write separately, however, to point out that Mother’s argument on appeal specifically pertains to her belief that she had conditioned her consent to termination on Paternal Grandmother’s testimony that she would allow continuing contact. There is no provision for this in the statute. The purpose of Act 101 is to provide “an option for adoptive parents and birth relatives to enter into a voluntary agreement for ongoing communication or contact[.]” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2731.1 Here, Mother believed Paternal Grandmother was bound by her testimony at the hearing. N.T. Permanency/Termination Hearing, 8/18/15, at 18. Mother did not ____________________________________________
[*2]J-S13041-16
understand that Paternal Grandmother could not be required to allow post- adoption contact.[2] ____________________________________________
[*3]J-S13041-16
BCCYS argues Mother acknowledged that she understood that “even though that is the understanding and expectation” she could not “make [her] consent to terminate parental rights contingent upon that[.]” N.T. Permanency/Termination Hearing, 8/18/15, at 19-21. This acknowledgement referred directly to Paternal Grandmother’s willingness to adopt Child, but it is unclear whether Mother understood that to mean that her relinquishment could not be contingent on Paternal Grandmother’s statement that she would allow continuing contact. To the layperson, these may have been distinct ideas. For this reason as well, it is evident Mother’s relinquishment of her parental rights was not voluntarily or intelligently made. See In re M.L.O., 416 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1980). _______________________ (Footnote Continued) (v) The willingness and ability of the prospective adoptive parent to respect and appreciate the bond between the child and the birth relative. (vi) Any evidence of abuse or neglect of the child. (c) Legal effect.--An agreement shall not be legally enforceable unless approved by the court.
[*4]