G.D. v. D.D.
61 A.3d 1031
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Child was adjudicated dependent on June 8, 2011, and placed with kinship caregivers A.D. and D.D.
- BCCYS sought and obtained placement with kinship caregivers pending licensing under 55 Pa.Code § 3700.70(a) by August 1, 2011.
- Placement shifted several times: January 2012 modification moved Child to G.D. and C.D. due to licensing issues with A.D./D.D.
- Mother and others moved for various placements; an evidentiary hearing occurred February 15, 2012 and February 21, 2012 resulted in Child being placed with G.D. and C.D.
- Aunt filed an Emergency Motion to terminate dependency and return Child to her, June 15, 2012; trial court denied June 29, 2012.
- Aunt appealed pro se from the June 29, 2012 order and related rulings, raising multiple issues including standing and procedural challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aunt had standing to intervene in the dependency proceedings | Aunt contends she stood in loco parentis and/or had kinship status warranting intervention. | Court concluded Aunt did not fit statutory standing categories and lacked in loco parentis status. | No standing to intervene; trial court's ruling affirmed. |
| Whether the court erred by not recognizing Aunt's in loco parentis status | Aunt asserts in loco parentis status entitled her to party status. | Record shows Aunt was not the child’s parent, legal custodian, or primary caregiver immediate to dependency adjudication. | No in loco parentis standing; affirmed. |
| Whether the court properly handled the emergency motion to terminate dependency and return Child to Aunt without a hearing | Procedural due process required a hearing before denying the motion. | Court has inherent authority to regulate procedure; no statutory requirement for a hearing here. | Court acted within its discretion; affirmed. |
| Whether the court erred in considering best interests and license status of kinship caregivers in determining placement | License status and prior kinship/caregiver rights should weigh in favor of Aunt. | Best interests weighed against Aunt given evidence at hearings; license status acknowledged but not controlling. | Best interests favored placement with G.D. and C.D.; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in dependency review)
- In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standing rules under Juvenile Act; three parties may have standing)
- In re D.S., 979 A.2d 901 (Pa. Super. 2009) (grandmother lacking standing when not caretaker at issue)
- In re D.K., 922 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2007) (in loco parentis standing extends to those who were primary caregivers discharging parental duties)
- In re L.C., I, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1998) (standing concepts for dependency proceedings)
- Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. 2005) (definition and scope of in loco parentis)
- Brooks-Gall v. Gall, 840 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standing of interested parties in dependency context)