In Re: K.M.S., Appeal of: A.M.S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J. A11025/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION IN RE: K.M.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M.S., MOTHER, Appellant SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1716 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., AND OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 8, 2014 Appellan Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that terminated her parental 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act. On appeal, Mother does not challenge the statutory bases under which her parental rights were terminated. This case concerns the notice provisions of the Adoption Act and whether Mother was properly served with notice of the hearing on termination of her parental rights. After careful review, we affirm. On May 31, 2011, Child came to the attention of the Allegheny County at 8.) Mother, a minor, who had been active with CYF, was referred to CYF J. A11025/14 for leaving Child unattended, improperly feeding Child, and neglecting Id. at 8-9) In August of 2011, CYF obtained an emergency custody authorization and placed Child in foster care because Mother had left her court-ordered placement at a shelter and did not return until the following day. September 12, 2011. (Id. at 9.) Child was adjudicated dependent on (Id. at 8.) Child was returned to Mother on October 3, 2011; however, during the following two months, Mother engaged in a physical altercation with another resident at the shelter, and Id. at 9-10.) As a result, CYF obtained another emergency custody authorization, and Child was placed into foster care on December 2, 2011, where she has remained since that time. (Id. at 10-11.) Family Service Plan goals were established for Mother; those goals included parenting to ensure proper supervision of Child, to maintain contact and cooperation with CYF, and to submit to drug and alcohol assessment and any recommended treatment. (Id. at 13.) Mother failed to meet any of her goals. (Id. at 16.) Throughout May of 2013, Mother habitually ran away from her court-ordered placements. (Id. at 16-17.) On May 31, 2013, Mother went on the run and did not return until June 24, 2013. (Id. at 17.) On that day, Mother and her attorney attended a permanency -2- J. A11025/14 review hearing at which the trial court scheduled the September 24, 2013 termination hearing. Mother now asserts she was not properly served with notice of the termination hearing. Section 2513(b) of the Adoption Act provides that: nt or parents, putative father, or parent of a minor parent whose rights are to be terminated, by personal service or by registered mail to his or their last known address or by such other means as the court may require. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2513(b) (emphasis added). Additionally, Section 2513(b) requires a warning that, upon failure to appear, the hearing will go on without the parent, and his rights to the child in question may be ended by the court without his presence at the hearing. Id. It is undispute attended the hearing.1 (Notes of testimony, 9/24/13 at 4). Additionally, noted: Mother has not consistently maintained a specific placement since giving birth to K.M.S. When Mother leaves without permission, she reportedly stays with family in McKeesport. Mother left her placement facility again without permission in late July or early August 2013. The petition to terminate parental accepted service on September 6, 2013. The [termination] hearing was held on September 24, 2013. Over the course of these events, Mother had 1 Id. at 4-5.) -3- J. A11025/14 been missing from her placement and [was] not in contact with CYF. The caseworker testified that when Mother runs away from her placement, Mother still remains in touch with her family. Because CYF knew that Mother resides with family in McKeesport, it was appropriate that CYF used the McKeesport addres deny that Mother was living with [her sister] at the McKeesport address. The return of service states living with Mother. Trial court opinion, 11/22/13 at 3-4 (internal citations to notes of testimony omitted). effort to assure she received notice and that notice should have been sent to her at her court-ordered placement facility is disingenuous in light of the fact Mother was missing most of the time. It appears to this court that in a good McKeesport at whose house Mother had been known to occasionally reside. behalf, and she gave no indication that Mother was not living there or that she would not be giving Mother the documents. (Document #3, Affidavit of Service.) We point out, however, that the notice requirement was already infringed because her counsel of record was not present at the termination -4- J. A11025/14 subject to termination in an involuntary termination proceeding . . disagree with when Child was adjudicated dependent on September 12, 2011. Mother had counsel throughout these proceedings. Notably, counsel was present at the permanency review hearing on June 24, 2013, when the trial court set September 24, 2013, as the date for the termination hearing. The trial court addressed this claim as follows: At the June 24, 2013 Permanency Review Hearing, to terminate her rights. Mother and [her attorney] were present in the courtroom when this Court scheduled the [termination] hearing for September 24, 2013. Both had personal knowledge. hearing without either Mother or [her attorney] is not an error, because both were present when this Court scheduled the date and because Mother and Trial court opinion, 11/22/13 at 5 (internal citations to notes of testimony omitted). We find no error here.2 Order affirmed. 2 We note in her brief Mother sets forth an argument that in order to satisfy the requirement of waiver of counsel, the trial court is required to conduct a colloquy of the parent/minor to determine if the parent/minor did in fact knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their right to counsel. original Rule 1925(b) statement or her amended Rule 1925(b) statement. Hence, we find it waived. See In re G.D., 61 A.3d 1031, 1036 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2013). -5- J. A11025/14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/8/2014 -6-
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.
