A.A.L. v. S.J.L. and M.L.A.
A.A.L. v. S.J.L. and M.L.A. No. 603 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Maternal grandmother (A.A.L.) filed a pro se custody complaint and an emergency custody petition in Jan 2015 after parents tested positive on court drug tests; the trial court temporarily awarded grandmother physical custody and referred matter to CYS.
- CYS investigated; after a June 30, 2015 adjudication hearing the court found the child not dependent and returned custody to the father; grandmother had custody ~Mar 19–Jun 30, 2015.
- Grandmother’s appeal from the dependency decision was dismissed by the Superior Court for procedural noncompliance.
- On Jan 7, 2016 grandmother filed a Rule 1915.13 petition for special relief (seeking custody/visitation clarification); the court held a hearing on Mar 28, 2016 where father’s counsel moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
- Court allowed grandmother to testify and proffer exhibits but excluded older evidence as not showing current risk and also declined to re-litigate the dependency finding; it dismissed her petition with prejudice for lack of standing and suggested she could pursue partial custody/visitation under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 if appropriate.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding (inter alia) that grandmother lacked standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 and that the trial court did not improperly bar testimony or evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court prevented grandmother from making a record to establish standing | Grandmother: court cut her off and excluded evidence she needed to prove standing | Father: grandmother had opportunity to testify and proffer exhibits; objection properly sustained to stale or irrelevant evidence | Court: grandmother testified and offered exhibits; exclusion of ~1-year-old evidence was proper because it did not show the child was currently at risk; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether grandmother had statutory standing for custody under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 | Grandmother: she acted as parent for >12 months and is willing to assume responsibility; alleges current parental drug abuse putting child at risk | Father: grandmother does not meet §5324(3) thresholds—child not dependent now, no current evidence of substantial risk, child did not reside 12 consecutive months | Court: lacked standing under §5324—(A) §5324(3)(iii)(A) inapplicable; (B) no current evidence child was substantially at risk; (C) child had not resided with grandmother 12 consecutive months and petition was untimely for that ground |
| Whether Rule 1915.13 petition was the correct procedural vehicle and whether denial deprived grandmother of visitation relief | Grandmother: filed under Rule 1915.13 and sought clarification and visitation; contends denial deprived her of access | Father: petition did not establish statutory standing; Rule 1915.13 is for interim/emergency relief, not substitute for a custody complaint under §5324/§5325 | Court: although petition was filed under Rule 1915.13, court permissibly construed it as under §5324 and dismissed for lack of standing; court explained grandmother could pursue partial physical custody/visitation under §5325 in a separate action |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing to relitigate dependency findings or accept older dependency evidence | Grandmother: dependency evidence from 2015 should be considered to show risk | Father: dependency court’s June 30, 2015 adjudication is a distinct proceeding; custody court may not give a second bite at the apple with stale evidence | Court: exclusion appropriate—custody court may not relitigate dependency finding via stale evidence; standing requires current risk evidence; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M. v. Baxter ex rel. T.M., 777 A.2d 446 (Pa. 2001) (statutory standing to bring grandparent custody claims is a question of law; construe §5324)
- K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2003) (when statute limits who may sue, standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite and may be raised anytime)
- In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (a child with a noncustodial parent who is ready, willing, and able to care for the child generally may not be found dependent)
- In re S.M., 614 A.2d 312 (Pa. Super. 1992) (heightened ineffective-assistance standard in dependency proceedings)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (referenced regarding §5325(2) constitutional considerations)