289 A.3d 109
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Child born in 2009; biological father absent. Mother married Former Stepfather, divorced in Jan 2017; Mother remarried Current Stepfather in May 2019.
- Former Stepfather lived as Child’s father, provided financial support and insurance, was held out as father, executed a post-nuptial custody agreement with Mother, and sought custody in 2020 while on active duty overseas.
- In Feb 2021 Mother & Current Stepfather filed to terminate biological father’s rights (granted Dec 2020). In Feb 2021 Former Stepfather and Current Stepfather filed competing adoption petitions.
- Trial court dismissed Former Stepfather’s adoption petition for lack of standing because Mother’s consent remained intact, and granted Current Stepfather’s adoption petition (Mar 31, 2021).
- Superior Court, applying intervening Pennsylvania Supreme Court authority, vacated and remanded: instructed the trial court to reexamine Former Stepfather’s standing, appoint counsel for Child, and conduct further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to intervene/adopt based on in loco parentis | Former Stepfather: he stood in loco parentis since birth and thus has standing to pursue adoption or intervene. | Trial court/Mother: Mother’s intact parental rights and her consent to Current Stepfather’s adoption mean Former Stepfather cannot proceed; her consent is required. | Superior Court: vacated dismissal; remanded to reassess standing. Standing is a threshold inquiry distinct from consent; in loco parentis may confer standing. |
| Whether mother’s consent requirement defeats standing | Former Stepfather: mother’s consent is a substantive issue for merits, not standing. | Mother/Trial court: statutory consent by natural parent bars ex-husband/stepfather from proceeding. | Superior Court: consent analysis is substantive and follows standing; lack of consent does not automatically bar standing. |
| Appointment of counsel/guardian ad litem for Child | Former Stepfather: Child (over 12) needs counsel to protect legal interests and consent rights. | Trial court: had appointed counsel previously in termination but did not appoint counsel in adoption; no defense argument preserved. | Superior Court: vacated and remanded; ordered appointment of counsel for Child to zealously advocate Child’s legal interests and preferences. |
| Effect of adoption on Former Stepfather’s custodial rights and procedural adequacy | Former Stepfather: adoption could eliminate his parental/custodial rights and affect benefits; court must consider consequences. | Mother/Current Stepfather: adoption in Child’s best interests with Mother’s consent. | Superior Court: remanded for further proceedings to consider these consequences with counsel for Child and to rule on standing/intervention. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (Adoption Act governs who may adopt and contents of adoption petitions)
- In re Adoption of E.M.A., 409 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1979) (adoption is purely statutory and statutes must be strictly followed)
- K.M.G. v. In re Adoption, 240 A.3d 1218 (Pa. 2020) (appointment of counsel for children in contested proceedings is non-waivable and critical to protect legal interests)
- In re P.G.F., 247 A.3d 955 (Pa. 2021) (detailing counsel’s role in ascertaining and advocating a child’s preference and best interests)
- In re D.N.G., 236 A.3d 361 (Pa. Super. 2020) (counsel must zealously advocate a child’s legal interests; mere reporting of preference is insufficient)
- In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for adoption rulings)
- Wims v. In re Adoption, 685 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Super. 1996) (definition and elements of in loco parentis)
- In re Adoption J.E.F., 902 A.2d 402 (Pa. 2006) (discussing consent and adoption contexts)
- In re Adoption of A.S.H., 674 A.2d 698 (Pa. Super. 1996) (best-interests standard in custody/adoption matters)