In the Interest of: G.K., a Minor, 1350 EDA 2017

Background

DHS received reports in August 2016 that the child (b. 2007) had been left in a hot car, made allegations of physical and sexual abuse against Mother and Mother’s husband, and had been found wandering asking to return to Maternal Grandmother in Florida.
Child was taken into protective custody, placed in general foster care, and adjudicated dependent by agreement on September 7, 2016; DHS was ordered to pursue placement with Maternal Grandmother in Florida via ICPC.
Maternal Grandmother intervened, sought custody, and Maternal Great‑Aunt in Pennsylvania also was proposed as a kinship placement; Child was temporarily placed with Maternal Great‑Aunt in Pennsylvania in March 2017.
At custody proceedings Child repeatedly stated he wanted to return to Maternal Grandmother (whom he called “mom”), reported fear of Mother’s home, and had behavioral deterioration while in foster care; Maternal Grandmother produced a 2010 notarized affidavit granting her custody authority, which Mother objected to but the court admitted.
On March 30, 2017 the trial court terminated dependency supervision and awarded permanent physical and legal custody to Maternal Grandmother; Mother appealed arguing lack of standing, failure to apply custody factors, child nonappearance at the hearing, and that reunification with Mother was appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Maternal Grandmother/DHS/Child Advocate Argument	Held
1. Standing of Maternal Grandmother to intervene and be a custody party	Grandmother lacked statutory standing and did not file a Philadelphia custody petition	Grandmother had in loco parentis status and intervened; public interest in child’s welfare supports participation	Court did not decide on standing on appeal; remand ordered for further explanation (panel retained jurisdiction)
2. Whether trial court properly considered 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) custody factors	Trial court failed to weigh/record analysis of all § 5328(a) factors before awarding custody	Trial court stated it considered factors and issued a detailed factual opinion supporting best interest finding	Appellate court found the trial court’s opinion did not address each § 5328(a) factor and remanded for a factor-by-factor explanation
3. Whether Child’s absence at custody hearing invalidated the award	Child did not appear to state preference; Mother argued custody decision invalid without child’s in‑court preference	Child had testified earlier and his preference was placed in the record; best interest analysis still required	Not decided on merits; remand required so trial court can explicitly address factors including child’s preference
4. Whether dependency should have been discharged and child returned to Mother	Mother asserted she was willing/able and no dependency issues remained	Parties noted ongoing safety concerns, child’s expressed fear of Mother’s home, and history of allegations and prior protective services involvement	Appellate court did not overturn custody order but remanded for written findings on § 5328(a); the trial court’s existing order remains in effect pending its supplemental opinion

Key Cases Cited

C.R.F. III v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for custody appeals; accept trial court’s supported findings)
Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deference to trial court credibility assessments in custody disputes)
Saintz v. Rinker, 902 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best‑interest standard in custody cases)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports court’s findings)
S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellate interference unwarranted if trial court carefully considered child’s best interests)
C.B. v. J.B., 65 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must state reasons for custody decision on the record or in writing)
J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all § 5328(a) factors must be considered for custody orders)