In Re: Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli, In Re: Todd (Hyung-Rae) Tarselli No. 930 MDA 2016

Appellant Todd (Hyung‑Rae) Tarselli petitioned the Luzerne County Orphans’ Court to amend his Pennsylvania birth certificate, seeking to change his birth year from 1973 to 1974.
He was born in Korea, taken to an orphanage, adopted by an American couple, and contends the recorded year is wrong due to differences in Korean vs. American age calculation and lack of original documentation.
After an evidentiary hearing, the orphans’ court denied the petition for lack of clear and convincing evidence that the recorded date was incorrect or that an alternative date was proven.
On appeal, Tarselli argued the orphans’ court erred because he had presented clear and convincing evidence of an incorrect birth year.
The Superior Court raised jurisdiction sua sponte and found Tarselli failed to join the Pennsylvania Department of Health, which administers statewide vital records and has a direct interest in birth‑certificate amendments.
Because the Department of Health was an indispensable party not joined, the Superior Court held the orphans’ court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction and affirmed the denial on that basis without reaching the evidentiary merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the orphans’ court had jurisdiction to decide the petition to amend a PA birth certificate when the Pennsylvania Dept. of Health was not joined	Tarselli sought amendment and did not join Dept. of Health; argued he proved the correct date (merits)	Dept. of Health not joined; its statutory custodial interest in vital records makes it an indispensable party	Failure to join Dept. of Health rendered the court without subject‑matter jurisdiction; appeal affirmed on that basis
Whether Tarselli provided clear and convincing evidence of an incorrect date of birth	Tarselli argued he provided clear and convincing evidence (Korean adoption/orphan facts and age‑calculation issue)	Orphans’ court found evidence insufficient	Court did not decide merits on appeal because of jurisdictional defect

Roman v. McGuire Mem’l, 127 A.3d 26 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
Orman v. Mortgage I.T., 118 A.3d 403 (Pa. Super. 2015) (failure to join indispensable party implicates subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Sprauge v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1988) (definition of indispensable party and when rights of absent parties bar decree)
CRY, Inc. v. Mill Service, Inc., 640 A.2d 372 (Pa. 1994) (orders entered without indispensable parties are void for want of jurisdiction)
Martin v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., 80 A.3d 813 (Pa. Super. 2013) (factors to assess whether a party is indispensable)
Commonwealth v. Burns, 988 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)