In the Interest of: M.L., a Minor (dissenting memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S68021-17 & J-S68022-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.L., MOTHER : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 909 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Juvenile Division, at No(s): CP-67-CR-0000165-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.L., MOTHER : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 910 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Juvenile Division, at No(s): CP-67-CR-0000166-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.D..L., A MINOR : : : : APPEAL OF: M.L., MOTHER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 919 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Decree May 9, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Orphans’ Court, at No(s): 2016-0177 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.L., MOTHER : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 920 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Decree May 9, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Orphans’ Court, at No(s): 2016-0178 BEFORE: LAZARUS, DUBOW, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S68021-17 & J-S68022-17 DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2017 Mother has done all that she was told to do. Indeed, the Majority acknowledges that the evidence at the hearing was that “Mother is employed, has housing, maintains contact with the Children consistently, and is taking her mental health medication.” Majority Memorandum at 8. Yet, the Majority affirms the termination of Mother’s parental rights not based upon any existing deficiency in Mother’s ability to parent, but because the CYF caseworker “expressed concern that Mother will become overwhelmed if the Children are returned to her care again.” Id. “[T]he right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of one’s children is one of the oldest fundamental rights” protected by our Constitution, and “termination of parental rights is the most extreme infringement” upon those rights.” In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 676 (Pa. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the termination decrees based upon mere fears that Mother might not continue to do as well upon the return of the Children to her care. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. -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.
