Interest Of: I.S.R., a minor, Appeal of: S.D.
Interest Of: I.S.R., a minor, Appeal of: S.D. No. 1786 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Mother (S.D.) petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s (D.R.) parental rights to their daughter (born Aug. 2012) under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (5), proposing adoption by maternal grandmother or godmother.
- Initial hearings occurred in 2015; record closed Nov. 13, 2015; briefing schedule followed. After briefs were filed, the trial court reopened the record to address a then-recent Superior Court decision (In re Adoption of M.R.D., 128 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2015)).
- Supplemental evidentiary hearing was held Aug. 30, 2016. On Aug. 29, 2016 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued In re Adoption of M.R.D., 145 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2016), resolving whether a grandparent may adopt while the mother retains parental rights.
- The Supreme Court in M.R.D. held that a mother cannot retain parental rights while her child is adopted by the maternal grandfather absent a showing of "cause" under § 2901; such an adoption would not create a new family unit and risks misuse of adoption to eliminate unwanted parents.
- The trial court applied the Supreme Court’s holding and dismissed Mother’s termination petition without prejudice because the proposed adoptive parent was the maternal grandmother/grandfather and Mother did not intend to relinquish her rights.
- Mother appealed, challenging (1) application of M.R.D. after filings (retroactivity) and (2) sufficiency of evidence to terminate Father’s rights; the Superior Court affirmed, upholding the trial court’s reliance on the Supreme Court decision and its discretion to reopen the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by applying In re M.R.D. after evidence closed (retroactive application) | Mother: Trial court should have decided under law in effect when petition filed and when evidence closed; reopening and applying M.R.D. retroactively was improper | Trial court/Father: Court permissibly reopened record and applied controlling Supreme Court precedent when issued; no prohibition on delay or reopening | Held: No error — trial court did not abuse discretion in reopening record or applying the Supreme Court’s ruling; affirmed |
| Whether Mother proved grounds to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under §2511(a)(1) | Mother: Evidence established Father failed to perform parental duties and exhibited settled purpose to relinquish rights | Father: (No brief filed) Trial court had discretion; factual disputes exist | Held: Superior Court did not reach merits; termination petition dismissed as not cognizable because proposed adoption by maternal grandparent with mother retaining rights was invalid under M.R.D.; appellate court affirmed on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of M.R.D., 145 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2016) (Supreme Court: parent cannot retain rights while child is adopted by grandparent absent cause under §2901; such adoption typically does not create a new family unit)
- In re Adoption of M.R.D., 128 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (Superior Court analysis of cause and proposed adoption’s integrity; trial-court review of adoptive intent)
- In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 2002) (Section 2901 “cause shown” can permit second-parent adoption despite statutory noncompliance)
- In re Adoption of L.J.B., 18 A.3d 1098 (Pa. 2011) (discussion of adoption’s purpose and court’s duty to assess bona fides of proposed adoption)
- In re B.E., 377 A.2d 153 (Pa. 1977) (adoption requires anticipated adoption to render termination petitions by a parent cognizable; relinquishment enables formation of new parent-child relationship)