In the Int. of: N.J., Appeal of: B.P.
1046 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2021Background
- Child N.J. adjudicated dependent (July 2016); parents’ rights terminated and permanency goal set to adoption.
- On July 1, 2019 the dependency court entered a protective order barring Maternal Aunt and her two sisters from any contact with Child and from attending sibling visitations, after finding the relatives had made repeated unfounded hotline reports that destabilized the placement; the order expired July 1, 2020.
- Sister B.P. (one of the sisters) filed to intervene and later sought nunc pro tunc relief; the Superior Court found her claims waived and moot in a related appeal.
- Maternal Aunt filed a motion (March 23, 2021) to appeal nunc pro tunc the July 1, 2019 order, claiming late awareness of the order (Dec. 29, 2020) and seeking resumption of visits and clarification that the exclusion applied only to sibling visits.
- The dependency court denied Maternal Aunt’s nunc pro tunc motion (Apr. 16, 2021); Superior Court affirmed, holding she lacked standing, failed to justify the delay for nunc pro tunc relief, and that challenges to the expired order were moot.
Issues
| Issue | Maternal Aunt's Argument | Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal dependency order | She sought to challenge the order barring her contact with Child | Appellee: she is not a party and never moved to intervene; Juvenile Act party status is limited | Court: No standing; she is not a party under the Juvenile Act; appeal dismissed on that basis |
| Timeliness / nunc pro tunc relief | She only learned of the order in Dec. 2020 and thus sought nunc pro tunc relief in Mar. 2021 | Court: she offered no adequate explanation for delay; nunc pro tunc requires extraordinary/non-negligent circumstances | Court: Denial of nunc pro tunc was not an abuse of discretion; no compelling excuse for delay |
| Mootness of challenge to July 1, 2019 protective order | Requests review and visitation despite order having expired July 1, 2020 | Court: expired order renders claims moot absent narrow exceptions | Court: Claims are moot and do not fit exceptions; review denied |
| Claim of ambiguity / visitation and constitutional/bias claims | Order omitted word "sibling" and thus ambiguous; alleged due process deprivation and court bias; sought reopening of visits | Court/Child: procedural bars (standing, timeliness, mootness); factual predicate supported protective order | Court: Substantive claims not reached on merits; relief denied for procedural reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Raheem v. Univ. of the Arts, 872 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard: abuse of discretion for denial of appeal nunc pro tunc)
- Freeman v. Bonner, 761 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition and scope of abuse of discretion)
- Fischer v. UPMC Northwest, 34 A.3d 115 (Pa. Super. 2011) (test for nunc pro tunc based on non-negligent circumstances)
- Blucas v. Agiovlasitis, 179 A.3d 520 (Pa. Super. 2018) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009) (party status in dependency proceedings is limited)
- K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standing intertwined with subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re C.R., 111 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standing in dependency proceedings reviewed de novo)
- In re L.C. II, 900 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2006) (procedural rights of parties in dependency cases)
- Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. 1993) (mootness exception for time-limited protective orders)
- Union Elec. Corp. v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (elucidation of abuse-of-discretion standard)