In Re: Adoption Of: L.b.m., a Minor. Appeal Of: J.p., Mother. in Re: Adoption Of: A.d.m., a Minor. Appeal Of: J.p…

Summary

A closely divided Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) unambiguously mandates appointment of counsel to represent the child's legal interests in contested involuntary termination of parental rights proceedings, and that the mandate is not satisfied by an attorney serving as guardian ad litem, whose statutory role is to advance the child's best interests. Because the trial court denied Mother's motion for counsel and proceeded with only the GAL, the Court classified the omission as structural error beyond harmless-error analysis, overruled In re K.M. to the extent inconsistent, and reversed and remanded for a new TPR proceeding with counsel appointed. The categorical exclusion of a GAL from serving as counsel (Part II(B)) drew only plurality support. Chief Justice Saylor, joined by Justice Todd, concurred in the judgment but rejected the per se bar in favor of case-by-case conflict analysis, while Justices Baer and Mundy, filing cross-joined dissents, concluded that an attorney-GAL satisfies § 2313(a) and would have affirmed the termination.