In re S.H.
71 A.3d 973
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Children adjudicated dependent and placed with DHS in 2006; DHS petitioned in 2009 for permanent legal custody (PLC) to maternal grandmother; PLC granted in 2010 and petitions to vacate PLC filed by father in 2010–2011.
- Father sought primary physical and legal custody; trial court denied; DHS and Child Advocates moved to quash or for dismissal; matter certified for interlocutory appeal; later deemed moot by some proceedings.
- Issue presented: whether PLC bars a parent from seeking primary custody later and whether the trial court has authority to modify PLC under the Juvenile Act’s § 6351(a)(2.1), in light of ASFA and related law.
- Trial court concluded PLC could be revisited if it served the child’s best interests; held that parental rights are not terminated and a parent may petition to regain custody.
- This Court addressed mootness concerns and determined the issues are capable of repetition and will evade appellate review, thus review is proper; DPW guidance and statutory context were considered.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to permit the petition to vacate and assign proceedings to the Juvenile Branch; motion to dismiss as moot was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PLC bar future custody petitions by a parent? | Child Advocates: PLC bars modification of custody. | DHS/Father: PLC does not bar petition to regain custody; modification may be allowed if best interests require. | PLC does not bar a parent’s petition to regain custody; modification possible. |
| Does § 6351(a)(2.1) divest trial court of jurisdiction to consider custody changes after PLC? | Child Advocates: court’s jurisdiction limited to support/visitation. | DHS/Father: court may address custody changes; statute allows modification within best interests. | Court has jurisdiction to hear custody modification when in best interests. |
| Is the question of whether a parent can seek custody after PLC moot? | Child Advocates: mootness should end inquiry since PLC effects are permanent. | DHS/Father: issues remain reviewable where repetition could occur and affect children. | Issues are capable of repetition and not moot; review proper. |
| Should DPW OCYF Bulletin interpretation be given weight in interpreting § 6351(a)(2.1)? | Child Advocates: bulletin reflects statutory interpretation. | DHS/County relies on agency guidance; deference due to agency interpretation. | DPW interpretation is persuasive and appropriately considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.V., 37 A.3d 588 (Pa. Super. 2012) (PLC not termination; family unity principle in Juvenile Act)
- D.R.C. v. J.A.Z., 31 A.3d 677 (Pa. 2011) (statutory interpretation standard; plenary review)
- J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2004) (mootness exception; repetition may warrant review)
- Orfield v. Weindel, 52 A.3d 275 (Pa. Super. 2012) (repetition; appellate review not precluded by mootness)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (SPLC framework; best interests standard)
- In re B.S., 861 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super. 2004) (SPLC; reunification/adoption not best option; subsidized custody)