Adoption of G. M.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1979
• Citation: 398 A.2d 642,484 Pa. 24
• Parties: ADOPTION OF G. M., a minor. APPEAL OF D. M.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 642

398 A.2d 642

484 Pa. 24

ADOPTION OF G. M., a minor.

APPEAL OF D. M.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 16, 1978.

Decided March 14, 1979.

[484 Pa. 26] Louis M. Shucker, Central Pa. Legal Services, Reading, for appellant.

Toby K. Mendelsohn, Reading, for appellee.

C. Wilson Austin, County Sol., G. Roderick Snyder, Asst. County Sol., Gerald P. Segal, Reading, for Berks County.

Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

OPINION

MANDERINO, Justice.

Appellee, C. S., filed a Petition for Adoption of G. M., a minor, and requested the termination of parental rights of the natural father, appellant, D. M. Appellant, who is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, Pennsylvania, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum, requesting that he be transported from Rockview to the adoption hearing in Reading. An indigent, appellant further requested that the costs of this transportation, $275.00, be paid by either appellee C. S., or appellee County of Berks. The Common Pleas Court, Orphans' Court Division, dismissed appellant's petition. An appeal was then filed in this Court, See the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 233, 17 P.S. § 211.202(3), and we granted leave to proceed In forma pauperis.

Appellant is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview following convictions for aggravated assault, possession with intent to deliver, and delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant had been in prison for approximately thirteen months when the original petition was filed in 1976, and he will not be released prior to June, 1979.

This appeal involves the single issue of whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in refusing to issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum and order one of appellees to pay the transportation costs. The trial court held that appellant's constitutional rights were not jeopardized by the denial of his Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum because appellant had notice of the proceeding and was represented by competent counsel. We do not consider the merits of those claims since we conclude that this appeal is interlocutory and must be quashed.

This Court has jurisdiction only to hear appeals from final orders unless otherwise permitted by statute. In the case before us jurisdiction is based upon Section 202 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 which states:

"The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from Final orders of the courts of common pleas on any of the following classes of cases:

(3) Matters decided in the orphans' court division. " (Emphasis added.)

Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. II, § 202, 17 P.S. § 211.202 (Supp.1978-79).

Therefore, before considering whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's writ and order directing payment of costs, we must first determine if this denial constituted a final order.

An order is considered final if it terminates...