In the Interest of J.F.
27 A.3d 1017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- DHS obtained Protective Custody of Child on October 8, 2008 and filed a dependency petition.
- Child was placed in shelter care and later placed with Foster Mother in December 2009 for adoption.
- Methodist, the adoption service provider, identified concerns about Foster Mother's care and compliance with foster regulations.
- On August 3, 2010 a meeting was held addressing these concerns; on August 6 Foster Mother gave a 30-day notice to remove the Child, which Methodist accepted on August 10, 2010.
- Foster Mother attempted to withdraw the notice after acceptance, but Methodist no longer recommended adoption by Foster Mother.
- An emergency permanency hearing was held on August 25, 2010 at DHS's request, resulting in removal of Child from Foster Mother's home; Foster Mother appeared pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster Mother's standing to participate as a party was proper | A.V.H. lacked custody and thus standing | DHS/guardian contended no standing for Foster Mother without legal custody | Foster Mother lacked standing; no party status |
| Whether Foster Mother's due process rights to counsel and cross-examination were violated | Foster Mother's due process rights were violated by denial of counsel and cross-examination | As she lacked standing, her due process rights as a party did not attach | No error given lack of standing; trial court's handling within limits of statutory framework |
| Whether Foster Mother was denied notice or opportunity to be heard | Notice was inadequate as to hearing purpose and timing | Foster Mother had notice and could be heard; content and timing were reasonable under circumstances | Notice sufficient to permit a meaningful hearing; no remand required |
| Whether the court should have referred back to the Master regarding Foster Mother's asserted threats | There were threats reported by Foster Mother and need for investigation | Threats were not established to require remand or referral to Master | Court did not err; issues deprioritized due to lack of standing for further review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.S., 923 A.2d 517 (Pa.Super.2007) (standing determined by jurisdictional analysis in dependency context)
- In re R.M., 567 Pa. 646 (2002) (adequacy of notice requires meaningful hearing with specific purpose)
- Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa.Super.2006) (identifying issues pro se appeal despite defects in brief)
- K.B. II v. C.B.F., 833 A.2d 767 (Pa.Super.2003) (standing as jurisdictional prerequisite when statute designates who may sue)