Opinion ID: 1984720
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Burden

Text: In March of 1982, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the termination of parental rights area. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). It declared, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that in cases of this type the state must establish the relevant conditions by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 768, 102 S.Ct. at 1402, 71 L.Ed.2d at 616. In In re Adoption of M.E.T., 313 Pa.Super. 316, 459 A.2d 1247 (1983), this Court held that the Santosky standard applied to cases which were on appeal when Santosky came down; and that those cases should be remanded for a hearing utilizing the new standard. The case before us was decided before Santosky appeared and was on appeal when that decision was made public. Thus, it could come within the M.E.T. remand requirement. However, while Santosky and M.E.T. do apply to the case before us, remand is not required here. This is because the court below used an evidentiary standard at least equal to the one mandated by Santosky. As indicated by its opinion, the evidentiary standard used by that court was clear, competent and compelling. [1] As a matter of legal construction, looking to the plain meaning of the words, compelling evidence is at least as stringent a requirement as convincing evidence. Santosky's requirement was met here and we can go on to consider the case on its merits.