Superior Court Vacates Termination, Remands for Counsel
Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an order terminating parental rights and remanded the case for a new hearing. The court found that the minor child was not represented by counsel, which is required by statute. The case involves a father appealing the termination of his parental rights to his child.
What changed
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an order terminating the parental rights of S.G.H., Jr. (Father) to his minor child, H.R.H. The court determined that the lower court failed to appoint counsel for the minor child, a requirement under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a), before holding the termination hearing. The case originated from a petition filed by the child's mother to terminate the father's rights due to past instances of corporal punishment and the father's non-compliance with court-ordered evaluations and treatment.
This decision necessitates a new termination hearing where the minor child must be represented by counsel. Compliance officers should note that failure to adhere to statutory representation requirements in parental rights termination cases can lead to vacatur of orders and remands for new proceedings. The specific implications for ongoing child welfare cases will depend on the jurisdiction's procedural rules and the nature of the representation required for minors.
What to do next
- Ensure legal counsel is appointed for minors in parental rights termination proceedings as required by statute.
- Review existing procedures for appointing counsel for children in family court matters.
- Prepare for potential remands or new hearings in cases where child representation was inadequate.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
by Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10814287/in-the-int-of-hrh-a-minor/#o1)
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In the Int. of: H.R.H., a Minor
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 1488 MDA 2025
- Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Judges: Bowes
Combined Opinion
by [Mary Janes Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8225/mary-janes-bowes/)
J-A07001-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INT. OF: H.R.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
APPEAL OF S.G.H., JR., FATHER : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
: No. 1488 MDA 2025
Appeal from the Order Entered September 25, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County Orphans' Court
at No(s): RT-11-2025
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and NEUMAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED MARCH 24, 2026
S.G.H., Jr. (“Father”) appeals from the order terminating his parental
rights to H.R.H. (born in March 2016). We vacate and remand for a new
termination hearing following the appointment of counsel for H.R.H. in
conformity with 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a).
Given our disposition, we need not provide a detailed history of this
case. Succinctly, Father and B.A.S. (“Mother”) separated in 2017 and
divorced in 2018. H.R.H. split time between Mother’s residence in Adams
County, Pennsylvania, and Father’s abode in Frederick County, Maryland.
That changed in 2022 when a Maryland court entered a protective order
against Father due to excessive corporal punishment of then-six-year-old
H.R.H., and Mother obtained primary physical custody. Father did not comply
with mandates that he undergo evaluations and treatment for mental health
and substance abuse and, as a result, had minimal contact with H.R.H.
thereafter.
J-A07001-26
On April 25, 2025, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental
rights to H.R.H. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b), and for
her new husband to adopt the child. The orphans’ court appointed counsel for
Father, who contested the termination. After several continuances, the court
held a hearing on the petition on August 11, 2025. Mother and Father
appeared with counsel, testified, and advocated, respectively, for and against
the termination of Father’s rights. Critically, the record contains no indication
that the court appointed counsel for H.R.H. or that he was otherwise
represented at the hearing. The orphans’ court ultimately granted Mother’s
petition and terminated Father’s rights, and this timely appeal followed.
The Adoption Act provides as follows regarding representation for
children:
The court shall appoint counsel to represent the child in an
involuntary termination proceeding when the proceeding is being
contested by one or both of the parents. The court may appoint
counsel or a guardian ad litem to represent any child who has not
reached the age of [eighteen] years and is subject to any other
proceeding under this part whenever it is in the best interests of
the child. No attorney or law firm shall represent both the child
and the adopting parent or parents.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a).
A failure to appoint legal counsel in accordance with § 2313(a) is non-
waivable, structural error. See In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1087 (Pa. 2018);
In re Adoption of K.E.G., 288 A.3d 539, 541 (Pa.Super. 2023). Further,
where, as here, no party asserts this claim of error on appeal, “our Supreme
-2-
J-A07001-26
Court has held that appellate courts should engage in limited sua sponte
review of whether children have been afforded their statutory right to legal
counsel when facing the potential termination of their parents’ parental
rights.”1 Adoption of K.E.G., 288 A.3d at 541 (cleaned up).
Having performed our duty to conduct this limited sua sponte review,
we must conclude that H.R.H. has not been afforded his statutory right to
counsel. Therefore, we are obligated to vacate the order of the orphans’ court
involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights and remand for a new
hearing to take place after the court appoints legal counsel for H.R.H. pursuant
to § 2313(a). Accord id. at 542.
Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/24/2026
1 Cf. In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1224 (Pa. 2020) (“[W]hile
an appellate court should verify that the orphans’ court appointed counsel to
represent the child’s legal interests, it may not assess sua sponte the
performance of that representation.”).
-3-
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when PA Superior Court publishes new changes.