In re D.N.G.

14 Citing cases

  1. In re H.H.N.

    2023 Pa. Super. 108 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)   Cited 16 times
    Holding where child's legal and best interests do not diverge in termination proceeding attorney-guardian ad litem representing child's best interests can also fulfill role of attorney under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313 to represent child's legal interests

    Id. at 20-21 (citing Interest of D.G., 241 A.3d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2020); Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 366 (Pa. Super. 2020)). Therefore, Mother concludes that because the trial court deprived Children of their statutory right to legal counsel, the decrees terminating her parental rights must be reversed.

  2. In re D.G.

    2020 Pa. Super. 269 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Father did not appeal. As discussed below in further detail, the trial court previously terminated Mother's parental rights to Child's sibling, D.N.G. (Sibling 1), but this Court vacated that decree in a published opinion in Interest of D.N.G. , 230 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2020). We consolidate Mother's and the GAL's appeals for the purpose of this decision.

  3. In re M.N.

    41 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 7, 2023)

    Id. at 20-21 (citing, inter alia, Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 366 (Pa. Super. 2020)). Therefore, Mother concludes that because the trial court deprived Children of their statutory right to legal counsel, the goal change orders must be reversed that the role of a child's legal counsel is “to engage in client-directed advocacy on behalf of the child.” Id. at 20-21 (citing, inter alia, Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 366 (Pa. Super. 2020)). Therefore, Mother concludes that because the trial court deprived Children of their statutory right to legal counsel, the goal change orders must be reversed.

  4. In re Z.N.B.

    2024 Pa. Super. 262 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)

    Mother relies on In the Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2020), but the case sub judice is clearly distinguishable. In D.N.G., this Court found that the eleven-year-old child's legal counsel failed to zealously advocate for the child's legal interests when counsel advised the court of the child's unequivocal preference not to be adopted, yet advocated for termination.

  5. In re Z.N.B

    No. J-A18010-24 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2024)

    See P.G.F, 247 A.3d at 966 ("[w]e will not mandate that an attorney convey highly sensitive, significant, and potentially emotionally damaging information to a child, or engage in a raw inquiry, merely to discern the clearest indication of a child's preference"); see also In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1082 n.2 (Pa. 2018) ("'[l]egal interests' denotes that an attorney is to express the child's wishes to the court regardless of whether the attorney agrees with the child's recommendation"). Mother relies on In the Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2020), but the case sub judice is clearly distinguishable. In D.N.G., this Court found that the eleven-year-old child's legal counsel failed to zealously advocate for the child's legal interests when counsel advised the court of the child's unequivocal preference not to be adopted, yet advocated for termination.

  6. In re Anderson

    2024 Pa. Super. 117 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Further, "[a]n issue identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant's brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived." In re D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 363 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Here, the orphans' court concluded that Appellant waived the first, second, fourth, fifth, and seventh issues that he raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement because he failed to raise them at the September 26, 2022 hearing.

  7. In re N.J.

    527 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2023)

    This Court has held that any issue "identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant's brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived." See Int. of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 363 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Mother has waived her second and fourth issues.

  8. In re Sokolow

    2652 Disciplinary Docket 3 (Pa. Sep. 28, 2023)

    N.T. 15-16. Petitioner introduced the decision, In re D.N.G., 2020 PA Super 62, as an exhibit. P-1.

  9. In re A.W.H.

    2011 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 1, 2024)

    Mother's reliance on Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa. Super. 2020), is unfounded as D.N.G. involved consolidated appeals from a contemporaneous termination decree and goal change order. Thus, we affirm the decree involuntarily terminating Mother's parental rights.

  10. In re Int. of: L.S.D.R.-C.

    357 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 1, 2023)

    Therefore, Father has abandoned this issue for purposes of appeal. See Interest of D.N.G., 230 A.3d 361, 363 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2020) (stating that "[a]n issue identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant's brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived" (citation omitted)).