In re: Adoption of L.B.M.

In 2015, the guardian ad litem (GAL) for dependent siblings L.B.M. and A.D.M.—ages 4 and 8, respectively—filed a petition to terminate their mother’s parental rights. Mother contested termination and asked the court to appoint a separate attorney to represent her children’s legal interests, in addition to the GAL who was representing their best interests. The trial court declined to do so, finding that their GAL, who was a lawyer, fulfilled the Adoption Act's requirement that "counsel" be appointed to children at contested termination hearings. After the hearing, which included evidence that L.B.M. wished to continue a relationship with his mother, the court terminated mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed.

Juvenile Law Center, in collaboration with American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Community Legal Services, Inc., National Association of Counsel for Children, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, and Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, filed an amicus brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in support of Mother's position. Juvenile Law Center argued that the Adoption Act's plain language requires appointment of separate, client-directed counsel to represent a child’s legal interest at contested termination hearings. Juvenile Law Center further argued that collapsing the roles of a GAL and client-directed counsel into a single person impedes effective advocacy and ultimately hampers the court in meeting the child’s best interest.

In a March 28, 2017, opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. The Court recognized that “appointment of client-directed counsel optimizes the protection of the child’s needs and welfare, which form the ultimate issue that the trial court must resolve” before terminating parental rights. A plurality of the Court further found that the GAL and client-directed counsel cannot be the same person, acknowledging the weightiness of children’s right to counsel and cautioning against a GAL serving as the “arbiter” of that right. The Court cited the Juvenile Law Center’s brief in holding that failure to appoint counsel to represent the children’s legal interest is structural error, requiring automatic reversal without the need to demonstrate prejudice.