J-A15023-26 2026 PA Super 155
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.T.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 283 MDA 2026
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 9, 2026
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 138-ad-2025
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 284 MDA 2026
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 9, 2026
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 139-ad-2025
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., LANE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY LANE, J.: FILED: JULY 22, 2026
J.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees which terminated her parental
rights to her two children: J.T.M. (born in 2013); and J.A.M. (born in 2015)
(collectively “the Children”). Additionally, Mother’s court-appointed counsel,
Cory A. Leshner, Esquire (“Attorney Leshner”), has filed a brief styled pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as well as an application to
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A15023-26
withdraw as counsel. We defer a ruling on counsel’s application, and remand
for the orphans’ court to prepare an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
Given our disposition, we need not provide a detailed history of this
matter. Instead, we briefly note that in 2023, Child Protective Services sent
a referral to the Dauphin County Children and Youth (“the Agency”) alleging
unsafe home conditions and substance abuse on the part of Mother. Mother
received service objectives in 2023 which were to cooperate and comply with
the Agency, address drug and alcohol concerns, obtain safe and stable
housing, maintain consistent income, and address mental health concerns. In
November 2023, the Children were adjudicated as dependent. The Agency
filed petitions seeking the termination of Mother’s parental rights to the
Children in December 2025. On February 9, 2026, the orphans’ court
conducted a termination hearing at the conclusion of which it announced its
decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children. The court did
not provide any explanation for its decision on the record. On that same date,
the orphans’ court issued decrees in which it indicated that it was terminating
Mother’s parental rights to the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). The orphans’ court did not author an opinion
specifying its factual findings, credibility determinations, or its analysis in
relation to section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).1
1 We are mindful that, in the context of termination proceedings, there is no
rule or other authority which requires the orphans’ court to delineate the (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-J-A15023-26
To complicate matters, upon the filing of a notice of appeal by Mother,
the orphans’ court did not author an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) because
Attorney Leshner filed a statement indicating his intent to file an Anders brief
in lieu of a Rule 1925(b) concise statement. Thus, the record does not include
a Rule 1925(a) opinion by the orphans’ court indicating its reasons for entering
the decrees from which Mother now appeals.
Notably, Rule 1925(a) requires the trial court to prepare an opinion in
a termination of parental rights case if the reasons for the termination decree
reasons and analysis underlying its termination decision either on the record in open court, or in a written opinion or order. By contrast, in the child custody context, after the trial court has reached a decision regarding custody, the court must delineate the reasons for its custody decision either on the record in open court, or in a written opinion or order. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5323(d). We find the absence of a corresponding requirement in the termination of parental rights context to be both perplexing and disconcerting. Whereas “child custody orders are temporary in nature and always subject to change if new circumstances affect the welfare of a child,” see Holler v. Smith, 928 A.2d 330, 331-32 (Pa. Super. 2007) (unnecessary capitalization omitted), by contrast, a decree terminating parental rights is permanent and irrevocable. Thus, we believe the need for a requirement that the trial court delineate and explain the specific basis or bases for termination is just as great, if not greater, in the termination context. On this basis, we urge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the exercise of its rulemaking authority, and our General Assembly, in the exercise of its law making authority, to consider enacting a requirement that the trial court delineate the reasons and analysis underlying its termination decision either on the record in open court, or in a written opinion or order. Meanwhile, in the absence of such a requirement, we note that the preparation of an opinion contemporaneous to a termination decree has been set forth as a best practice for trial court judges. See Pennsylvania Dependency Benchbook, 4th Ed., Section 18.3 (pertaining to termination of parental rights cases, and providing that “the judge should be sure to place on the record a comprehensive discussion of the reasons for the final order in the case”).
-3-J-A15023-26
are not otherwise indicated in the record. In this regard, the Rule provides as
follows:
In a children’s fast track appeal[,] . . . [u]pon receipt of the notice
of appeal and the concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal required by Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(2), the judge who entered
the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the reasons
for the order do not already appear of record, shall within
30 days file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons
for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained
of, which may, but need not, refer to the transcript of the
proceedings.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added).
The failure by a trial court to adhere to the requirements of Rule 1925(a)
deprives the appellate courts, as well as the parties, of information, insight,
and analysis critical to an appeal. As our Supreme Court has explained:
Indeed, in any case where the trial court fails to prepare an
opinion that addresses the issues upon which it passed and which
are raised by a party on appeal, the net result is the same: the
appellate court is deprived of explication and guidance on those
issues from the judicial entity most familiar with the matter.
Moreover, the parties may be left without a meaningful context
within which to make their arguments on appeal, particularly as
to discretionary matters.
Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 868 A.2d 379, 383 (Pa. 2005)
Here, because the trial court did not provide its reasons for terminating
Mother’s parental rights at the termination hearing, or at any time thereafter,
the court was required by Rule 1925(a)(2)(ii) to file of record at least a brief
opinion of the reasons for the termination decrees. See id.
-4-J-A15023-26
The importance of the requirements of Rule 1925(a) in the context of
terminal of parental rights cases cannot be overstated. As this Court has
explained:
We recognize the heightened import of this judicial duty in
the context of family law matters, particularly termination of
parental rights cases, where “the significant gravity of a
termination of parental rights . . . has far-reaching and
intentionally irreversible consequences for the parents and the
child.” In re Adoption of C.M., . . . 255 A.3d 343, 358 ([Pa.]
2021)[; s]ee [also] In the Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1114
(Pa. 2023) (Supreme Court acknowledging, in termination of
parental rights case, trial court need not recite “magic words”
when conducting section 2511(b) analysis, but “has to make clear
all of the foregoing factors were considered and the correct
standard applied in weighing them[, which includes,] foster parent
bond, pre[-]adoptive home, and need for permanency”).
In re K.O.C., 325 A.3d 854, 858 (Pa. Super. 2024).
Accordingly, in termination of parental rights cases, where the
significant gravity of a termination of parental rights has far-reaching and
intentionally irreversible consequences for the parent and the child, the trial
court has the responsibility to provide an independent judicial analysis for
purposes of our appellate review. See id. This is because the orphans’ court’s
consideration and analysis of each statutory ground for termination is vital to
performing our appellate review. See In re Adoption of A.C.B., 334 A.3d
351 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished memorandum at *7); see also In re
-5-J-A15023-26
Adoption of J.G.B., 334 A.3d 354 (Pa. Super. 2024) (unpublished
memorandum at *6).2
“In the absence of a Rule 1925(a) opinion or, at a minimum, a statement
from the trial judge explaining [its] individualized and considered reasons for
terminating Mother’s parental rights, this Court is unable to conduct
meaningful appellate review.” See K.O.C., 325 A.3d at 858. Where “the trial
court [has given] no independent rationale on the record for its decision to
terminate Mother’s parental rights to her . . . children,” “this dereliction of
duty cannot be overlooked in light of the significant consequences of the trial
court’s [termination] decrees.” Id.; see also C.M., 255 A.3d at 358 (holding
that “[a] parent's right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and
control of his or her children is among the oldest of fundamental rights”)
(citations omitted).
Further, Attorney Leshner’s request to withdraw from representation
requires this Court to “conduct an independent review of the record to discern
if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.”
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015); see
also Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(en banc) (describing our duty as a “simple review of the record to ascertain
if there appears . . . to be arguably meritorious issues that counsel,
2 An unpublished or “non-precedential decision” of the Superior Court filed on
or after May 1, 2019, may be cited for its persuasive value. Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
-6-J-A15023-26
intentionally or not, missed or misstated”). Without the orphans’ court’s
findings, credibility determinations, and analysis of the statutory grounds for
termination, we cannot perform this independent review.
Accordingly, we remand these matters to the orphans’ court for
preparation of an opinion within thirty days of the date of this order. The
opinion shall address the statutory grounds upon which the orphans’ court
terminated Mother’s parental rights as to each child, with appropriate findings,
credibility determinations, and analysis. Attorney Leshner shall have twenty
days, following the filing of the orphans’ court's opinion, to determine if a new
Anders/appellate brief is necessary. Should Attorney Leshner file a new brief,
the Agency and the participants will have twenty days thereafter to respond.
Cases remanded with instructions. Application to withdraw deferred
until remand is complete. Panel jurisdiction retained.
-7-