In the Int. of: N.M.J., Appeal of: B.P.
2216 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 28, 2022Background
- Child born in 2015 tested positive for drugs; Biological Mother identified Foster Mother (called a “cousin”) and Child was placed with Foster Mother at birth.
- Child briefly reunified with Biological Mother in 2015–2016, then returned to Foster Mother and has lived with her almost continuously since infancy.
- Parental rights of both biological parents were involuntarily terminated in 2018; Maternal Aunt filed to adopt in Feb. 2019; Foster Mother filed to adopt in Oct. 2019.
- Consolidated/adoption hearings took place Aug. 5, 2021 and Oct. 1, 2021; trial court granted Foster Mother’s petition and denied Maternal Aunt’s petition.
- Trial court found Child bonded to Foster Mother (Child calls her “mom”), found sibling contact could be preserved under Foster Mother, and concluded Maternal Aunt had been a barrier to sibling visits and did not have an ongoing close relationship with the Child.
- Maternal Aunt appealed pro se raising challenges to the best-interest determination and several evidentiary rulings; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Maternal Aunt's Argument | Foster Mother / Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adoption by non-relative foster parent violated Child’s best interests because adoption by blood relative (Aunt) would preserve siblings | Aunt: Best interests favor placement with biological family; Aunt can raise Child with siblings; Aunt filed first and is fit | Foster Mother: Child bonded to her, lived with her almost entire life, will facilitate sibling contact | Court: Adoption by Foster Mother affirmed; best interest favors stability and established bond over family preservation |
| Whether the court over-weighted length of placement given court/system delay | Aunt: Delay in resolving custody caused by court appeals; Foster Mother shouldn’t benefit from delay | Foster Mother/Trial Ct: Delay was not caused by Foster Mother; Child’s long placement establishes bond and stability | Court: No abuse of discretion; time in placement properly considered as part of best-interest analysis |
| Whether Foster Mother’s initial misidentification as a “cousin” or alleged drug activity should bar adoption | Aunt: Foster Mother falsely represented kinship and has drug/selling history making her unfit | Foster Mother: No criminal/DHS/drug history in record; was treated as kin and meets “kin” definition; denies drug use | Court: Allegations either unproven or irrelevant; court credited Foster Mother’s testimony and found no unfitness |
| Whether the trial court erred in sustaining objections to questions about original home certification and alleged drug-selling | Aunt: These facts are relevant to fitness and credibility | Foster Mother: Questions irrelevant to Child’s current best interests; issues either resolved or immaterial | Court: Sustaining objections not an abuse of discretion; excluded questions were not consequential to the adoption determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2016) (family preservation is important but not dispositive; best interest controls)
- In re Adoption of G.R.L., 26 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. 2011) (family-preservation must be weighed with other best-interest factors)
- In re E.M.I., 57 A.3d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review can proceed despite defects in pro se filings when reviewable)
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (admission or exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (pro se litigants receive no special procedural benefits)
- Forrester v. Hanson, 901 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se filings does not excuse failure to comply with appellate rules)