In the Int. of: C.R., a Minor Appeal of: M.J.R.
111 A.3d 179
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Two minor girls (C.R., b. 2006; D.R., b. 2008) were placed with Foster Mother and her husband (M.R.) in October 2010 and adjudicated dependent on October 14, 2010.
- Biological mother voluntarily relinquished parental rights in April 2012; trial-court safety plan (Nov. 2, 2012) permitted the children to remain in Foster Mother’s home with conditions restricting M.R.'s contact.
- M.R. was charged with indecent assault in July 2012, pled guilty in June 2013, and was later sentenced and placed on the Megan’s Law registry.
- On June 20, 2013 the Agency removed the children from Foster Mother’s home and placed them with new foster parents; Foster Mother received no notice of the modification motion or related proceedings and did not seek to intervene at the time.
- Foster Mother filed motions for permanency review on December 18, 2013 seeking return of the children and claiming statutory (42 Pa.C.S. § 6336.1) and Pa.R.J.C.P. violations; the trial court dismissed the motions for lack of standing on January 2, 2014.
- The Superior Court quashed Foster Mother’s appeals, holding she lacked standing to seek placement review in dependency proceedings and that her six-month delay and failure to seek participation in earlier hearings was fatal to her claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster Mother had standing to move for permanency review/placement in dependency proceedings | Foster Mother: as pre‑adoptive/foster parent in loco parentis she had standing under In re C.M.S. and § 6336.1(a) to seek placement and to be heard; removal violated notice rules and Pa.R.J.C.P. 1606 | Agency/Trial Court: Foster Mother no longer had care/control or legal custody; dependency party status is limited and foster parents do not have standing to intervene | Court held Foster Mother lacked standing; appeals quashed |
| Whether lack of notice to Foster Mother constituted reversible error absent standing | Foster Mother: § 6336.1(a) and Rule 1606 required notice and opportunity to be heard; lack of notice denied due process | Agency: Even if notice rules apply, Foster Mother did not attempt to participate in initial hearings and delayed six months before asking relief | Court held Foster Mother’s delay and failure to seek participation at the time meant the due‑process claim did not salvage her standing; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; defer to trial‑court factual findings)
- In re S.H.J., 78 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Super. 2013) (foster parents and persons in loco parentis generally lack standing to intervene in dependency proceedings)
- In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009) (foster parents lack legal custody and standing to participate in dependency cases)
- In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prospective adoptive parents in loco parentis have standing in custody/termination contexts)
- In re J.F., 27 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2011) (foster parent who lacked standing still entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard; courts examine whether requirements were meaningfully met)
- Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1998) (prospective adoptive parents standing in loco parentis may bring custody claims)