194 A.3d 614
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Child (J.P.), born 2010, primarily lived with maternal great-grandparents by Oct 2015; father retained parental rights.
- Father and mother entered a partial custody consent decree in July 2016; four days later maternal great-grandparents sought emergency custody alleging Father had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with the child.
- Trial court vacated the July 2016 consent decree and awarded emergency custody to maternal great-grandparents; they later obtained primary physical custody and limited Father to supervised visits.
- Paternal grandparents (Appellants) waited to seek intervention under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(3)(iii)(B) until June 28, 2017—after maternal great-grandparents had already removed the alleged risk and exercised custody.
- Trial court sustained maternal great-grandparents’ preliminary objections and dismissed the paternal grandparents’ petition to intervene for lack of standing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paternal grandparents had standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(3)(iii)(B) (child substantially at risk due to parental abuse/neglect/drug or alcohol abuse/incapacity) | Appellants: ongoing risk exists because Father retained parental rights, so the child is substantially at risk and grandparents may intervene | Maternal great-grandparents & trial court: no current substantial risk when petition filed because they had already removed the child and assumed custody, so Appellants’ late intervention fails the statutory risk requirement | Judge Bowes would affirm trial court on this issue: Appellants lacked standing under § 5324(3)(iii)(B) because the substantial risk had been alleviated before they acted; but the court ultimately reversed dismissal on other statutory grounds (see next row) |
| Whether Appellants have standing under the newly enacted 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324(4) (clear and convincing evidence of assumption/willingness to assume responsibility, sustained interest, and neither parent has care/control) | Appellants: their sustained relationship with and willingness to assume responsibility for J.P. satisfies the § 5324(4) test | Maternal great-grandparents: conceded Appellants’ relationship and willingness but initially objected to intervention under § 5324(3) timing; did not contest § 5324(4) application | Judge Bowes concurred in result: although Appellants lacked standing under § 5324(3)(iii)(B), they would satisfy § 5324(4) (effective July 3, 2018), so reversal of dismissal was appropriate on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- D.G. v. D.B., 91 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standing in custody cases requires scrutiny to protect family integrity and proper litigants)
- Martinez v. Baxter, 725 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1999) (interpreted predecessor statute to confer broad grandparent standing; court here treats parts of Martinez as dicta)
- R.M. v. Baxter ex rel. T.M., 777 A.2d 446 (Pa. 2001) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Martinez reasoning on standing under prior statute)
- In re D.M., 995 A.2d 371 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standing may be revisited as facts evolve during custody litigation)
- Morgan v. Weiser, 932 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. 2007) (parental rights termination affects third-party standing possibilities)