In the Interest of: J.P., a Minor, 895 EDA 2017

Two children (A.V., J.P.) were placed in foster care with O.T. after dependency adjudication in 2012; permanency goals later changed to adoption.
O.T. was a certified foster parent but had not completed a family profile or taken steps to adopt (no adoption petitions, no attorney retained).
In September 2016 a drug screen of O.T. tested positive at very high levels for multiple controlled substances; Children were removed from her home and she lost foster certification.
Master Ciccone ordered testing and CEU evaluation; DHS and Child Advocate sought judicial removal and the master found removal was in the children’s best interests.
Trial court adopted the master’s recommendation on February 10, 2017; O.T. appealed alleging waiver ruling error, lack of standing, denial of due process/notice, and that removal was contrary to children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether failure to file Rule 1191 challenge waived appellate issues	O.T.: court erred in finding waiver where she didn’t file motion within three days	Trial court: Rule 1191 requires timely challenge to preserve issues	Court: No waiver — Rule 1191 uses "may"; rehearing discretionary; appeal not barred
2. Whether O.T. had party standing as a prospective adoptive parent	O.T.: she was a prospective adoptive parent and thus had standing to oppose removal	DHS/Child Advocate: legal custody remained with agency; foster/preadoptive parents lack party standing absent legal custody	Court: O.T. lacked standing — no adoption placement, no legal custody, no adoption steps completed
3. Whether O.T. was denied notice and opportunity to be heard under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6336.1	O.T.: statutory right to notice/hearing violated at Dec 2016 and Feb 2017 hearings	DHS: O.T. received notice and was permitted to testify and counsel argued on her behalf	Court: No denial — O.T. received notice and opportunity to be heard; counsel later permitted to argue
4. Whether removal from O.T.'s home was contrary to children’s best interests	O.T.: children had lived with her for years and removal was not in their best interests	DHS: positive high-level drug test created obvious safety risk; removal necessary	Court: Merits not reached due to lack of standing; removal order affirmed

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; accept factual findings if supported)
In re J.F., 27 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2011) (pre-adoptive foster parent lacked party standing where agency retained legal custody)
In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009) (foster parents may not intervene or obtain party standing when agency retains legal custody)
In re C.R., 111 A.3d 179 (Pa. Super. 2015) (limits on party status in dependency proceedings to parents, legal custodian, or person whose care is in question)
In re S.H.J., 78 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standing questions in dependency proceedings reviewed de novo)
In re Griffin, 690 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Super. 1997) (pre-Section 6336.1 case recognizing prospective adoptive parent standing under unique facts)