As attorneys who represented amici in the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case In re L.B.M., we write to respond to the June 26, public interest column describing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in that case, (“Providing a Voice for the Child in Court”). With respect for our colleagues at the Support Center for Child Advocates, we believe that this column understates both the breadth and the clarity of the court’s holding in that case.
In re L.B.M. is a landmark opinion establishing definitively that when a child’s right to a lifelong relationship with her family might be severed in a contested termination of parental rights hearing, she is entitled to a client-directed attorney who fulfills the traditional role of counsel and advocates for her wishes before the court. The Supreme Court, in its “main opinion” joined by five of the seven justices, held it is “evident from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute that a lawyer who represents the child’s legal interests, and who is directed by the child, is a necessity.” The main opinion further held that failure to appoint legal counsel for a child warrants automatic reversal of a termination of parental rights decree. None of these holdings was limited to the facts of the case.
