In Re: Adopt. of M.R.D. and T.M.D. Appeal of: M.C.
128 A.3d 1249
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Two minor boys (born 2004) were raised primarily by their mother (M.D.) and maternal grandfather (Grandfather); Grandfather performed daily parental duties and provided ongoing financial support.
- Father (M.C.) lived in South Dakota, had sporadic contact early on, and had not seen the children since January 2006; minimal support and only occasional cards; little or no bond with the children.
- Mother and Grandfather filed an involuntary petition (Jan/Feb 2013) seeking termination of Father’s parental rights so Grandfather could adopt while Mother would retain her parental rights.
- Orphans’ Court found Father failed to perform parental duties for over six years, evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish parental claim, and that termination would serve the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs.
- A three-judge panel initially reversed; the matter was reheard en banc and the Court affirmed termination, holding Grandfather qualified as a "good cause" adoptive candidate and proposed adoption was foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Grandfather) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother/Grandfather showed "good cause" to permit Grandfather to adopt while Mother retains rights | Grandfather has been a de facto parent since birth, adoption memorializes status quo and is feasible; cause shown under §2901 | Adoption by maternal grandfather cannot create a proper new family unit; cohabitation and spousal-type relationship required; statute not meant to let a parent propose their own parent as adoptive nominee | Court: Good cause shown; cohabitation not required; Grandfather’s long‑standing parental role suffices and adoption is foreseeable |
| Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1) is supported | Father abandoned duties and exhibited settled purpose to relinquish rights (no contact 2007–2012) | Father attempted contact, had difficulty locating Mother, and later filed for custody; his stated intent to bond should be considered | Court: Clear and convincing evidence of failure to perform duties/settled purpose; father had opportunity and resources to contact but did not; credibility of father’s excuses rejected |
| Whether termination satisfies §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare) | Termination preserves stability because Grandfather is primary caregiver and will provide continuity, security, education benefits | Termination cuts off Father’s financial/emotional resources and may create role confusion; adoption is a tactic to shut out Father after he sought custody | Court: Termination serves developmental, physical, and emotional needs; children have no bond with Father and are bonded to Grandfather; adoption furthers children’s best interests |
| Whether cohabitation or creation of a traditional "new family unit" is necessary for involuntary termination to allow third‑party adoption | Not required; legal parent-child relationship can be created even without shared household when de facto parental role exists | Insists cohabitation and family-unit formation are essential; allowing grandfather to co-parent with adult child undermines statutory scheme and public policy | Court: Rejected rigid cohabitation requirement (citing In re Adoption of J.M.); focus is on existing parental role and benefits to child rather than formal household arrangement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.M.I., 57 A.3d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2012) (petitioning parent must aver a present intention to adopt or that an adopting person exists)
- In re Adoption of L.J.B., 18 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2011) (involuntary termination tied to purpose of enabling an adoptive placement that creates a new parent‑child relationship)
- In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (court may allow non‑spouse adoptions upon showing cause under §2901)
- In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (maternal grandfather may be considered as an adoptive nominee; cohabitation not an absolute requirement)
- In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements of §2511(a)(1) and framework for evaluating abandonment and parental duties)
- In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parental duty requires affirmative effort to maintain parental role; failure to act can support termination)
- In re B.E., 377 A.2d 153 (Pa. 1977) (Adoption Act not intended to be used as a weapon to punish a parent; termination must serve child’s needs)