284 A.3d 121
Pa.2022Background:
- Child (born 2010) adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS in 2015; parents’ rights terminated in 2017 and DHS obtained custody.
- Child lived with foster/kin placements since age five; foster parent initially filed to adopt but later withdrew.
- Appellant T.B. (adult child of the child’s former legal guardian) alleges he lived with and cared for the child from infancy to age five, was called “Dada,” and later sought to intervene and adopt (motions filed 2019–2020).
- Appellant was never a legal guardian or named party in dependency proceedings; there were abuse allegations (later found unfounded) and some criminal-history evidence in the record.
- Juvenile court denied intervention for lack of standing, reasoning a third party must either have agency consent, be a close relative, or currently stand in loco parentis; Superior Court affirmed.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a de novo hearing, holding prior in loco parentis status can, in appropriate circumstances, support standing and that agency consent is a merits issue, not a threshold bar to standing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must in loco parentis be "current" to confer standing to intervene in an agency adoption? | T.B.: No — past assumption of parental role and discharged duties may suffice. | DHS/Child Advocate: Yes — standing requires current in loco parentis or agency consent/familial status. | Court: No; previously-acquired in loco parentis can demonstrate a substantial interest and support standing; trial court erred by requiring "current" status. Remand for hearing. |
| Is agency consent under the Adoption Act a prerequisite to standing? | T.B.: Consent is not a threshold for standing; it is a merits/substantive issue. | DHS: Agency consent (or statutory familial status) is necessary; without it, no standing. | Court: Agency consent is a substantive matter for the adoption merits; withholding consent does not automatically defeat standing. |
| Did appellant prove he stood in loco parentis? | T.B.: He cared for the child from days old until removal (age five) and discharged parental duties. | DHS: Record lacks legal relationships, appellant failed to intervene earlier, and evidence is insufficient or self-serving. | Court: Facts unresolved; juvenile court relied on improper "currentness" rule and insufficient credibility findings. Remand for factfinding on assumption of parental role, discharge of duties, and expectation of permanency. |
| Procedural remedy — is remand/de novo hearing required and before whom? | T.B.: Requests remand for proper standard and hearing. | DHS: Opposes delay and contends standing properly denied. | Court: Reverse and remand for de novo hearing before a different judge; instructs juvenile court to follow Orphans’/juvenile procedural expectations to resolve promptly. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Hess, 608 A.2d 10 (Pa. 1992) (agency’s withheld consent is not necessarily dispositive of a third party’s standing; court must assess child’s best interests).
- In re Adoption of J.E.F., 902 A.2d 402 (Pa. 2006) (Adoption Act’s consent provisions do not control the threshold standing inquiry; traditional standing principles apply).
- T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A.2d 913 (Pa. 2001) (defining in loco parentis: assumption of parental role and discharge of parental duties; living as a family unit is strong evidence).
- J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 682 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Super. 1996) (strong psychological bonds from early caregiving can confer a prima facie right to be heard under in loco parentis).
- In re N.S., 845 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2004) (former foster parent lacked standing where agency custody prevailed; distinguishes foster-parent context).
- In re Adoption of A.M.T., 803 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 2002) (addressing Hess and standing rules; contains language about "current" in loco parentis that lower courts had treated as a general rule).