J-S04003-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.C.A.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.W., FATHER 

_________________________________ 

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR 

APPEAL OF: R.W., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

 OF PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1969 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 10, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-AP-0000253-2021, 

CP-51-DP-0001289-2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.W., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2128 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered September 10, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0001289-2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.C.A.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.W., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2129 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 10, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-AP-0000253-2021
J-S04003-22

- 2 -

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 11, 2022

R.W. (Father) appeals from the decree and the order, both entered on

September 10, 2021, that granted the petitions filed by the Philadelphia 

Department of Human Services (DHS) to terminate Father’s parental rights 

and to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption for S.W. 

(Child),1 born in July of 2019. After review, we remand for proceedings 

consistent with this decision. 

Before we are permitted to address any issues raised in these appeals, 

we must determine if waiver has occurred under Commonwealth v. Walker, 

185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). On October 7, 2021, Father’s counsel filed a single 

notice of appeal from the goal change order entered on the dependency trial 

court’s docket at number CP-51-DP-0001289-2019, and from the termination 

decree entered on the adoption trial court’s docket at number CP-51-AP0000253-2021. This Court issued a Rule to Show Cause, which requested a 

response from Father’s counsel relating to the failure to comply with Walker, 

185 A.3d at 977 (quashing single notice of appeal taken from separate trial 

court docket numbers), and In the Interest of S.D. and L.D., 257 A.3d 746 

(Pa. Super. 2021) (quashing appeal from a single notice of appeal taken from 

a goal change order entered in the dependency trial court docket number and 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Child is also identified as S.C.A.W. 
J-S04003-22

- 3 -

a termination of parental rights decree entered in the adoption trial court 

docket and there was no breakdown in the trial court).

2

 Following counsel’s 

response, this Court discharged the Rule to Show Cause order. 

On October 20, 2021, Father’s counsel filed two untimely appeals from 

the September 10, 2021 decree and order. Each of these appeals were 

docketed separately in this Court at 2128 EDA 2021 and 2129 EDA 2021 and

listed only one trial court docket number in its caption. However, on October 

30, 2021, counsel filed separate applications to withdraw those two appeals, 

which this Court ordered be deferred to the merits panel by order dated 

November 16, 2021. Meanwhile, on November 6, 2021, Father’s counsel filed 

an Application for Non-Quashal at 1969 EDA 2021, which this Court also 

ordered be deferred to the merits panel. Lastly, on December 10, 2021, this 

Court ordered that the above-captioned cases be consolidated. 

We now must determine whether to grant or deny the request to 

withdraw the two untimely appeals and whether to grant or deny the request 

to not quash the original appeal. To begin, we grant the request to withdraw 

the untimely appeals because, simply stated, they are untimely. Specifically, 

Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) requires that a notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days 

____________________________________________

2 The Rule to Show Cause order also mentioned that the September 10th order 

did not direct a goal change; rather, it indicated that the current placement 

goal for Child was adoption. However, on October 18, 2021, the trial court 

entered an amended order, changing the Child’s goal to adoption, having 

recognized that the September 10th order incorrectly indicated that the current 

goal at that point was already adoption.
J-S04003-22

- 4 -

after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken[,]” unless special 

provisions apply, which in this situation, they do not. 

With regard to the request to not quash the initial appeal, we must 

examine opinions that apply the Walker rule to termination of parental rights 

cases and goal change cases. A recent decision issued by this Court involved 

a mother who filed a single notice of appeal from two separate orders. The 

opinion explained that the orders consisted of: 

a decree terminating her parental rights on the adoption docket 

and an order changing [the child’s] permanency goal on the 

dependency docket. [The m]other filed this notice of appeal solely 

at the adoption docket but purported to appeal from both 

dispositions, as evidenced by her inclusion of both dockets on the 

notice and challenging both orders in her concise statement.

In the Interest of: A.J.R.O., --- A.3d. ---, 1238 EDA 2021, at *2 (Pa. Super. 

filed Feb. 8, 2022). The A.J.R.O. opinion further stated that:

In Walker, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court mandated “that 

when a single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower 

court docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed[ and t]he 

failure to do so will result in quashal of the appeal.” Walker, 

supra at 977. [The m]other responded, asking this Court to strike 

the goal change portion of her appeal. Alternatively, she argued 

quashal was unnecessary pursuant to Always Busy Consulting, 

LLC v. Babford & Company, Inc., ... 247 A.3d 1033 ([Pa.] 

2021), because the termination and goal change dockets were

“consolidated.”

Id. The A.J.R.O. opinion also explained that “[t]his Court has since extended 

Walker to require quashal when an appellant files a single notice of appeal 

from both the dependency docket and adoption docket as separate notices of 

appeal are required for discrete challenges to the permanency goal change 
J-S04003-22

- 5 -

order and termination order.’” S.D., 257 A.3d at 749 (citing In the Matter 

of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 981 (Pa. Super. 2019)). 

However, the A.J.R.O. opinion indicated that this Court must also 

consider Rule 902, which states in pertinent part:

Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing 

of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but 

it is subject to such action as the appellate court deems 

appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, remand of 

the matter to the lower court so that the omitted procedural step 

may be taken.

Pa.R.A.P. 902. In Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021), our 

Supreme Court explained that “[i]n the event of a defective notice of appeal, 

Rule 902 encourages, though it does not require, appellate courts to remand 

the matter to the lower court so that the procedural defect may be remedied.” 

Id. at 477 (quoting Commowealth v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583, 588 (Pa. 

2014)).

Thus, based upon our review, we conclude that a remand is necessary 

in this case. In the application for non-quashal, Father’s counsel explains that 

initially she electronically filed two timely notices of appeal, one for each 

common pleas court docket number, but that the system only generated one 

EDA number rather than the two numbers that should have been generated. 

Thus, counsel asserts that a breakdown in the court’s operations occurred

because the system did not automatically generate two separate EDA case 

numbers. In light of this contention, Rule 902, and Young, we conclude it is 
J-S04003-22

- 6 -

appropriate to remand this matter to the trial court to permit counsel to file 

separate notices of appeal from the decree terminating Father’s parental 

rights and the order changing Child’s goal to adoption. Father shall file these 

notices of appeal within 14 days of the date of this decision.

3

 

For the reasons stated above, we remand this matter for proceedings 

consistent with this decision. 

Case remanded. Jurisdiction retained.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/11/2022

____________________________________________

3 Despite our decision to remand the matter here, we mention our confusion 

as to some of the statements made in counsel’s application for non-quashal, 

the most blatant of which misstates that the Supreme Court’s filing of the 

Walker opinion occurred on October 29, 2021, while it actually was issued in 

2018.