In the Interest of S.H.J.
78 A.3d 1158
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Children S.H.J. and A.J. entered Philadelphia DHS dependency proceedings after concerns about parental uncooperativeness and safety; A.J. was removed in 2009 and S.H.J. adjudicated dependent in 2011.
- Parental rights of Mother and Father were involuntarily terminated in July 2011.
- Maternal Aunt served as the kinship foster parent for the Children from July 2011 until DHS removed them from her care in April 2012; the record is unclear why DHS removed the Children from her home.
- On August 24, 2012, Maternal Aunt petitioned to intervene in the dependency proceedings claiming in loco parentis status, kinship foster custody, pre-adoptive status, and DHS support.
- The juvenile court denied the petition for lack of standing on September 25, 2012; Maternal Aunt appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed standing de novo and affirmed, holding Maternal Aunt did not fall into the limited classes entitled to party status in dependency proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Maternal Aunt's Argument | DHS/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maternal Aunt had standing to intervene in dependency proceedings | She was the maternal aunt, served as kinship foster parent, stood in loco parentis, had bonded custody for months, was identified in plans as working to adopt, and DHS supported placement with her | Party status in dependency is limited to parents, legal custodians, or the person whose care/control is in question; foster parents or in loco parentis alone do not confer standing | Denied — Maternal Aunt lacked standing because she did not fall into the three statutory/common-law categories for dependency party status |
| Whether in loco parentis or kinship/foster status alone creates standing | In loco parentis and kinship foster care should confer standing (and pre-adoptive expectation should, too) | In loco parentis and foster status do not create a separate category for dependency standing; only the three enumerated classes qualify | Held that in loco parentis or foster status without more is insufficient for standing in dependency proceedings |
| Whether prior identification as a pre-adoptive/foster-to-adopt parent gave standing | Maternal Aunt relied on an August 2012 family service plan indicating someone was in a pre-adoptive home and that she was working on paperwork to adopt | The record does not show Maternal Aunt’s home was the pre-adoptive home; no adoption petition had been filed and the pre-adoptive designation did not establish standing | Denied — issue was not preserved below and facts did not support pre-adoptive status for Maternal Aunt |
| Whether precedent from custody/adoption contexts applies to dependency standing | Cited custody/adoption cases and statutes recognizing in loco parentis in those contexts to support standing | Those authorities govern custody or adoption/termination proceedings, not juvenile dependency; dependency standing is narrower | Held irrelevant — custody/adoption cases/statutes do not expand dependency standing categories |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.D., 61 A.3d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for standing in dependency matters)
- In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2006) (limits dependency party status to parents, legal custodians, or person whose care/control is contested)
- In re F.B., 927 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 2007) (foster or in loco parentis status alone does not confer dependency standing)
- In re D.K., 922 A.2d 929 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standing arose from being the primary caregiver whose care/control was the subject of the dependency, not merely in loco parentis)
- In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009) (foster parents lack standing in dependency proceedings)
- Kellogg v. Kellogg, 646 A.2d 1246 (Pa. Super. 1994) (in loco parentis considered in custody contexts, not controlling in dependency)
- In re Adoption of B.R.S., 11 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2011) (addresses standing in termination/adoption context; not controlling in dependency)
- In re Griffin, 690 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Super. 1997) (dealt with foster parents appealing removal of children from their care, not dependency intervention)
- In re N.S., 845 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2004) (addresses adoption/visitation standing, not dependency)