In Re Adoption of B.R.S.
11 A.3d 541
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- B.R.S. was born March 8, 2008; Father and Mother were incarcerated, leaving no caregiver after birth.
- Jefferson County CYS placed B.R.S. with Foster Parents, who had care of a half-sister; dependency adjudicated and legal custody with CYS granted.
- Permanency goals initially aimed at reunification; Foster Parents were identified as prospective adoptive parents.
- Father made limited progress due to imprisonment; he eventually completed some required assessments and maintained contact with CYS and Foster Parents.
- In 2009-2010, the juvenile court shifted focus toward adoption for permanency; CYS planned to increase Father’s visitation but did not pursue termination at that time.
- In 2010, Foster Parents filed a petition for involuntary termination of both parents; Father moved to quash for lack of standing under §2512; orphans’ court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster Parents have standing to file a §2512 involuntary termination petition | Foster Parents relied on Griffin to claim standing as prospective adoptive parents. | Father argued Foster Parents lack legal custody or in loco parentis status under §2512. | Foster Parents lack standing; standing is not satisfied by mere prospective adoptive status. |
| Whether Griffin's prospective adoptive parent exception applies | Griffin permits standing due to expected permanent custody. | Griffin is inapplicable because there is no removal dispute or permanent placement agreed by Father. | Griffin exception does not apply under these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Griffin, 456 Pa.Super. 440, 690 A.2d 1192 (Pa.Super. 1997) (prospective adoptive parents may have standing when challenging termination)
- In re B.L.J., Jr., 938 A.2d 1068 (Pa.Super.2007) (standing and in loco parentis considerations for third-party petitions)
- In re Adoption of W.C.K., 748 A.2d 223 (Pa.Super.2000) (elements of in loco parentis status and permanent placement)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa.Super.2005) (in loco parentis requires agreement to permanent placement)
- In re Adoption of Re J.F., 392 Pa.Super. 39, 572 A.2d 223 (Pa.Super.1990) (standing concepts in custody/adoption contexts)
- In re Adoption of Crystal D.R., 331 Pa.Super. 501, 480 A.2d 1146 (Pa.Super.1984) (early framework for third-party standing in adoption matters)