In the Interest of: R.M.H. (concurring memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S72009-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.H., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: S.H., FATHER No. 986 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Decree Entered May 4, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at No(s): 61-ADOPT 2011/164 DP 2010 BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J. Filed: February 8, 2013 I join the Majority Memorandum except with regard to its discussion addressing Father s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Agency s petition to change the permanency goal for R.M.H. to adoption. Majority Memorandum at 18. I would not address the merits of Father s claim. Because we have already concluded that the trial court properly terminated Father s parental rights, I believe that Father s challenge to changing R.M.H. s goal from reunification to adoption is moot. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the statute does not require that a goal change precede the filing of a termination petition. In re Adoption of ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S72009-12 S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017, 1029 (Pa. 2006). See also In re H.S.W.C.-B, 836 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. 2003) (holding that orders granting or denying goal changes, as well as orders terminating or preserving parental rights, are final and appealable when entered and remain in effect until overturned on appeal, or rendered moot by a subsequent order). Accordingly, I concur. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
