34 A.3d 1281
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- T.B.G. appeals an orphans’ court order denying her second collateral petition to set aside an adoption decree and the termination of parental rights for Z.S.H.G.
- Z.S.H.G. has resided with Appellees (R.S.G. and S.K.G.) since 2005, full-time since 2006; Appellees are relatives (cousins once removed).
- An involuntary termination petition was filed November 7, 2006; a February 9, 2007 termination decree was entered in Appellant’s absence after proper notice.
- Appellant did not appeal the termination/decree; on April 29, 2008 she collateral attacked the termination and adoption decrees, which the court denied on March 29, 2009.
- On May 14, 2010 Appellant filed a second Petition to Set Aside Adoption and Order Decreeing Termination of Parental Rights, arguing Appellees lacked standing under the Adoption Act.
- The orphans’ court granted summary judgment for Appellees on February 16, 2011, and dismissed Appellant’s petition; this Court addresses whether the collateral attack is barred and whether standing/subject matter jurisdiction issues defeat Appellant’s challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether standing is a prerequisite to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in adoption/termination actions | Appellant asserts Appellees lacked standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2512(a) to pursue termination | Appellees contended standing issues are, at most, a barrier to relief but do not defeat the court’s jurisdiction | Standing is not jurisdictional; but the issue is waived/rejected on basis with record |
| Whether the orphans’ court erred by treating standing as a jurisdictional defect and by relying on W.C.K. | Appellees’ standing flaws render the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction | Court can proceed despite standing concerns; deYoung overruled W.C.K. on jurisdiction stakes | W.C.K. does not control; standing is not a jurisdictional prerequisite; the challenge is waived on appeal |
| Whether collateral attack on an adoption decree is barred by law-of-the-case/res judicata | Appellant maintains the prior rulings did not address standing and thus law-of-the-case does not bar this challenge | The court’s prior review implicitly determined jurisdictional issues; collateral attack is barred | Appellant cannot challenge the adoption decree via collateral attack; affirmed on basis of law-of-the-case/waiver |
| Whether the adoption decree was immune from collateral attack given proper jurisdiction | Appellant claims lack of notice/standing voids decree | Decree issued by a court with jurisdiction is immune to collateral attack; burden on attacker to show invalidity by clear and convincing evidence | Adoption decree generally immune from collateral attack; Appellant’s arguments fail; court had subject matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of W.C.K., 748 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standing can be a prerequisite to jurisdiction; but later overruled deYoung on this point in substance)
- In re Nomination Petition of deYoung, 903 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 2006) (overruled W.C.K. on standing as jurisdictional prerequisite; standing not jurisdictional)
- In re Adoption of List, 418 Pa. 503, 211 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1965) (five principles for collateral attack on adoption decree; burden on attacker to show invalidity)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (implicitly determined jurisdiction on prior appeal; discusses res judicata-like effect on later challenges)
- In re M.J.S., 206 Pa. Super. 154, 903 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (recognizes collateral attack principles on adoption/termination)
- In re Adoption of B.E.W.G., 379 Pa. Super. 264, 549 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Super. 1988) (traditional standards for collateral attack on adoption decree)