In the Interest of B.C.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY

LAZARUS, J.:

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s holding that Father’s claims are waived. The majority relies on In Interest of R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super.2008). However, I believe R.P. is distinguishable and, therefore, the majority’s reliance on it to justify waiver is misplaced.

Essentially, Father’s claims challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to terminate his parental rights in light of a “financially prohibitive, repetitive, and burdensome” permanency plan. Since exceptions are no longer allowed in termination cases, see Pennsylvania…