[J-34A-2020][M.O. - Baer, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF K.M.G.

APPEAL OF: T.L.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 55 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered 9/13/19 at No. 580 WDA 

2018, affirming the Decree entered 

3/5/18 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

McKean County at No. 42-17-0239

SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020

IN RE: ADOPTION OF A.M.G.

APPEAL OF: T.L.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered 9/13/19 at No. 581 WDA 

2018, affirming the Decree entered 

3/5/18 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

McKean County at No. 42-17-0240

SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020

IN RE: ADOPTION OF S.A.G.

APPEAL OF: T.L.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered 9/13/19 at No. 582 WDA 

2018, affirming the Decree entered 

3/5/18 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

McKean County at No. 42-17-0241

SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.C.C.

APPEAL OF: T.L.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 58 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior 

Court entered 9/13/19 at No. 583 WDA 

2018, affirming the Decree entered 

3/5/18 in the Court of Common Pleas of 

McKean County at No. 42-17-0242

SUBMITTED: April 16, 2020
[J-34A-D-2020][M.O. – Baer, J.] - 2

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: NOVEMBER 10, 2020

I join the majority opinion. 

Although our Juvenile Court Procedural Rules and numerous opinions appear to 

equate the legal interests of a child with the child’s express wishes, I take this 

opportunity to clarify my view that the child’s legal interests are broader in scope. See, 

e.g., National Ass’n of Counsel for Children, NACC Recommendations for 

Representation of Children in Abuse and Neglect Cases 11 (2001) (observing that the 

legal interests of the child may be unclear or contradictory, for example, “a child has a 

legal interest in being protected from abusive or neglectful parents”).1 What Section 

2313(a) of the Adoption Act requires is “counsel to represent the child in an involuntary 

termination proceeding,” 23 Pa.C.S. §2313 (emphasis added), which I take to signify a 

client-directed relationship akin, to the extent possible, to one enjoyed by an adult. 

Accord ABA Model Act Governing the Representation of Children in Abuse, Neglect, 

and Dependency Proceedings §7(c) (2011), Commentary (“The child’s lawyer helps to 

make the child’s wishes and voice heard but is not merely the child’s mouthpiece. As 

with any lawyer, a child’s lawyer is both an advocate and a counselor for the client.”). 

The ABA Model Act’s discussion of a substituted judgment determination, as 

contrasted with a best-interests analysis, see id. §7(d) also has salience, in my view. 

See ABA Model Act §7(d), Commentary (“A substituted judgment determination is not 

the same as determining the child’s best interests; . . . “[r]ather, it involves determining 

 

1 These recommendations are presently under review for revisions. See National Ass’n 

of Counsel for Children, Standards of Practice

https://www.naccchildlaw.org/page/StandardsOfPractice (last visited Aug. 14, 2020).
[J-34A-D-2020][M.O. – Baer, J.] - 3

what the child would decide if he or she were able to make an adequately considered 

decision.”). Thus, I would also clarify that a child’s legal counsel in involuntary 

termination proceedings should carefully screen against conflicts -- not only between 

the expressed and best interests of the child -- but also between his substituted 

judgment determination (applicable where children lack the capacity to express their 

wishes) and a best-interests analysis. When either sort of conflict exists, counsel 

should seek the appointment of an independent, best-interests advocate.