PA court reverses denial of counsel for kids, rejects post-hoc justification
In Interest of M.V.E., 2026 WL 2211271 (Pa. Super. 2026), an appellate court reversed a trial court’s termination of parental rights order due to the trial court’s handling of the children’s right to counsel. In the case, an attorney had only been appointed to serve as the children’s guardian ad litem. In its opinion in support of the termination order the court stated the attorney actually had been appointed in a dual capacity, but the appellate court explained that the trial court had never made a finding that the attorney could represent both best interests and stated interests without a conflict, and additionally that “This Court has [] previously rejected attempts by an orphans’ court to rely upon a belated conflict determination in a Rule 1925(a) opinion.” It then remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to determine if a conflict existed, and if so, appoint an attorney and conduct a new termination trial (whereas if the trial court found new conflict it could re-enter the termination order, “which will constitute final, appealable orders”).
