In Re: A.C., Appeal of: Somerset County CYS

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 11, 2015
• Docket: 1420 WDA 2014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A07014-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: A.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: SOMERSET COUNTY CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES

No. 1420 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order July 21, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Orphans' Court at No(s): 14 Adoption 2013

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUNDY, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 11, 2015

I join the Majority. However, I write separately to distance myself

from the Majority’s conclusion that the orphans’ court abused its discretion

by denying CYS’s petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother and

Father.

When the trial court entered its order on July 24, 2014, it did so in

reliance on this Court’s decision in In re D.C.D., 91 A.3d 173, 179 (Pa.

Super. 2014), which our Supreme Court reversed on December 15, 2014.

In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014). The trial court decided this matter

according to then-existing law, and therefore, I do not believe that it abused

its discretion. Rather, we remand because “a new rule of law is applied

retroactively so that a party whose case is pending on direct appeal is

entitled to the benefit of changes in the law.” Walnut Street Associates v.

Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 20 A.3d 468, 479 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).