Opinion
J-A20027-18 No. 464 WDA 2018
12-03-2018
IN RE: ADOPTION OF L.R., A MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: L.R.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order March 2, 2018 in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 63-17-0648 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
L.R. ("Child"), born in March 2015, by his former court-appointed counsel, Joyce A. Hatfield-Wise, Esquire ("Attorney Hatfield-Wise"), purportedly appeals from the Order (hereinafter, the "Removal Order") that disqualified Attorney Hatfield-Wise as Child's counsel. We quash the appeal.
While Attorney Hatfield-Wise was representing Child in early 2018 concerning proceedings to terminate the parental rights of Child's parents, counsel for Child's mother made an oral Motion to disqualify Attorney Hatfield-Wise. The trial court disqualified Attorney Hatfield-Wise, finding that she had a conflict of interest due to her prior representation of Washington County Children and Youth Services (the "Agency"), in a dependency aspect of Child's case in 2015. The Removal Order appointed, as Child's new legal counsel, Frank Kocevar, Esquire ("Attorney Kocevar"), who had previously served as the guardian ad litem for Child in the dependency proceedings. Attorney Hatfield-Wise timely filed a Notice of appeal from the Removal Order, along with a Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
In the brief on appeal purportedly filed on behalf of Child, Attorney Hatfield-Wise raises two issues:
Child's parents have not participated in this appeal. Counsel for the Agency filed a brief urging this panel to affirm the Removal Order. According to the Agency, "all lower court proceedings have been halted because of [A]ttorney Hatfield-Wise's appeal to this Court[,]" which is thwarting achieving permanency for Child. Brief for the Agency at 3.
1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ordered the removal of court[-]appointed legal counsel for [Child,] ... upon the oral motion of [Child's m]other's counsel[,] without any notice or evidence that [Attorney Hatfield-Wise's] involvement more than 2 years ago was substantial, that Rule 1.11 [of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules] inured to the benefit of parent's counsel, or that [Attorney Hatfield-Wise] had any conflict of interest with the Agency in this matter?Brief for Attorney Hatfield-Wise at 4 (emphasis omitted).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ... further ordered [Attorney Hatfield-Wise] to leave the courtroom and nearly the courthouse?
Before we may address the merits of these issues, however, we must determine if the Removal Order is appealable by Attorney Hatfield-Wise, who purports to appeal in a representative capacity on behalf of Child. Initially, it is well established that an order disqualifying counsel is interlocutory and unappealable as to the party represented by counsel. See Middleberg v. Middleberg , 233 A.2d 889, 890-91 (Pa. 1967). Moreover, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified that an order disqualifying counsel does not satisfy the collateral order exception set forth at Pa.R.A.P. 313. See Vaccone v. Syken , 899 A.2d 1103, 1107 (Pa. 2006) (superseded on other grounds); see also Richardson-Merrell , Inc. v. Koller , 472 U.S. 424, 440 (1985) (same). Finally, we emphasize that upon disqualifying Attorney Hatfield-Wise as Child's counsel, the trial court immediately appointed Attorney Kocevar to represent Child, who was familiar with Child's case; thus, Child is neither unrepresented nor aggrieved. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/27/18, at 2 (finding that Attorney Kocevar "was very familiar with the case and this [c]ourt determined that we could proceed without prejudicing any party[,]" i.e., after the disqualification of Attorney Hatfield-Wise); accord In re N.B., 817 A.2d 530, 536 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that an order that denied the mother in a dependency matter the power to discharge court-appointed counsel in favor of new counsel was interlocutory and unappealable, and noting that "no right held by [m]other was lost by the lower court's order denying [m]other's request to change counsel[.]"). Accordingly, we quash the appeal.
Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/3/2018