126 A.3d 985
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- In Nov. 2013 two grandchildren, G.L.P. (5 months) and C.L.P. (3 years), were removed from parents after near-fatal non-accidental trauma to G.L.P.; DHS placed them in foster care and they were adjudicated dependent in Mar. 2014.
- Trial court entered an "aggravating circumstances" finding but ordered reunification services and directed DHS to explore kinship placement.
- Grandparents filed a custody complaint and a contemporaneous motion to intervene on June 19, 2014, and later a motion to schedule a custody trial under Pa.R.C.P. 1915.4.
- At an oral argument the grandparents conceded they lacked standing to intervene in the dependency proceeding but sought a separate custody hearing under the Custody Act (23 Pa.C.S. § 5324).
- The trial court denied the motion to intervene and declined to schedule a custody trial, reasoning that the Juvenile Act’s reunification goal and parents’ continuing prima facie custody rights precluded hearing the custody complaint.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding § 5324(3)(iii)(A) grants grandparents standing to file a custody action once a child is adjudicated dependent and remanded for a custody hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents have standing to have their custody complaint scheduled while children are adjudicated dependent | Grandparents: § 5324(3)(iii)(A) gives standing when a child is adjudicated dependent; Rule 1915.4 requires listing for trial | Trial court/Child Advocate: Juvenile Act permanency goals (reunification) and parents’ prima facie rights make hearing premature; grandparents lack standing in dependency | Held: Grandparents have standing under § 5324(3)(iii)(A); trial court erred in refusing to list custody action for hearing |
| Whether the Juvenile Act supersedes the Custody Act and bars a concurrent custody action during reunification efforts | Grandparents: Custody Act’s plain language applies; Juvenile Act does not strip § 5324 rights | Trial court: Juvenile Act goals of reunification control and delay custody hearings until permanency changes | Held: Juvenile Act does not negate grandparents’ standing under Custody Act; plain text controls |
| Whether prior case law (Hess, R.M.) requires termination or adoption before grandparents may seek custody | Grandparents: R.M. is distinguishable because statute changed; Hess pertains to Adoption Act and is inapplicable | Trial court: Relied on those cases to limit grandparents’ standing to exceptional circumstances | Held: Court rejects reliance on Hess (Adoption Act context) and distinguishes R.M. given statutory revision (§ 5324 replacing § 5313) |
| Whether trial court’s refusal was a legal error requiring reversal | Grandparents: Denial was legal error; remedy is reversal and remand for custody hearing | Trial court: Discretionary denial grounded in family unity policy | Held: Superior Court reversed and remanded to promptly list custody action for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- B.K.M. v. J.A.M., 50 A.3d 168 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and statutory interpretation principles)
- Commonwealth v. Garzone, 34 A.3d 67 (Pa. 2012) (plain language governs statutory construction)
- In re Adoption of Hess, 608 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1992) (grandparent intervention in adoption after parental rights terminated)
- R.M. v. Baxter, 777 A.2d 446 (Pa. 1999) (grandparent standing under predecessor statute in dependency-to-adoption context)
- D.G. v. D.B., 91 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interpreting § 5324’s requirements for grandparent standing)