Opinion

In Re William L.

  • 477 Pa. 322
  • 383 A.2d 1228
  • 1978 Pa. LEXIS 900
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 31, 1978
Status
Published
Author
Manderino
On the bench
Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
Cited by
271 cases

asserting that the state should not be required to preserve a non-existent family relationship, and thereby consign a child indefinitely to “the limbo of foster care.”

How later courts described this case

  • asserting that the state should not be required to preserve a non-existent family relationship, and thereby consign a child indefinitely to “the limbo of foster care.”
  • the Commonwealth cannot remove the child from his parent's home except upon a showing by "clear and convincing evidence that removal is `clearly necessary'"
  • recognizing the injustice in consigning a child indefinitely to the “limbo” of foster care
  • “Removal of the children from their foster homes, or inflicting upon them the fear that they might be removed at any time, could create psychological and emotional distress . . . .”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MANDERINO, Justice,

dissenting.

I must dissent. The majority holds that the state may constitutionally terminate the parental rights of a parent if that parent, without fault, is incapacitated, and the incapacity prevents the parent from taking care of that parent’s children. The state does not have such a dangerous and far-reaching right over its citizens. Suppose a parent is incapacitated, without fault, as the result of an automobile accident, or a heart attack, or an injury received during a war? Under the majority’s holding, if such a parent cannot take care of his or her children, the state may terminate parental rights. To state the issue is to answer it. The state can constitutionally have no such right.

We are not in this case concerned with custody. Of course, if a parent is incapacitated, a benevolent and protec *370 tive state may help that parent by providing care for the children outside of the parent’s custody. The termination of parental rights, however, means that the child is dead so far as that parent is concerned. I cannot, as does the majority, make a valued judgment that a child will grow up to be a better adult if that child is cut off from its natural parents who áre not able, without fault, to care for the child.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.