303 A.3d 425
Pa.2023Background
- Grandparents lived with Parents and the two children from 2017 until Parents moved out with the children on May 2, 2022.
- Grandparents filed a custody complaint (July 20, 2022) seeking shared legal and partial physical custody under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325(3).
- The trial court initially found no standing under § 5324 but later (Oct. 6, 2022) issued a Standing Order concluding Grandparents had standing under § 5325(3); the court emphasized the order addressed only standing, not custody merits.
- Parents appealed; the Superior Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory. Parents sought discretionary review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court limited to whether the Standing Order was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313.
- The Supreme Court held separability and importance prongs of Rule 313 were satisfied but concluded the irreparability prong failed because Parents could raise the standing issue on appeal from a final custody order; the Court affirmed the Superior Court’s quashal.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | Grandparents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order finding Grandparents have standing under §5325(3) is immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | The Standing Order meets separability, importance, and irreparability; delaying review would irreparably burden Parents’ fundamental parental rights and force costly, intrusive litigation | Grandparents (and the Court) conceded separability and importance but argued irreparability fails because appellate review is available after a final custody order and Parents could seek interlocutory permission under Pa.R.A.P. 312 | The Court: separability and importance satisfied, but irreparability not met — the order is not a collateral order immediately appealable under Rule 313; Superior Court's quash affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (applies collateral order doctrine to standing/intervention issues in custody context)
- Shearer v. Hafer, 177 A.3d 850 (Pa. 2018) (explains final-order rule and narrow construction of collateral-order doctrine)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Dirs. Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (codifies narrow application of collateral order review)
- In re Barnes Foundation, 871 A.2d 792 (Pa. 2005) (orders denying intervention must be appealed promptly or the right to appeal is lost)
- Beltran v. Piersody, 748 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2000) (order granting intervention in custody action is not a collateral order)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parental due-process right to make child-rearing decisions)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (discusses parental rights and bifurcating standing from merits in custody litigation)
- K.W. v. S.L., 157 A.3d 498 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Superior Court decision holding an order granting in loco parentis standing could be collateral; not disapproved here)