206 A.3d 1171
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Child born 2009; Mother died in 2013; Child had an established relationship with maternal grandparents.
- Maternal Grandparents obtained a 2016 Stipulated Order awarding them limited partial custody/visitation (monthly and summer time), modifiable per therapist recommendation.
- In 2017 Maternal Grandparents filed a Petition to Modify Custody alleging Father was not complying; after a custody trial the court awarded grandparents partial physical custody every other Saturday, certain holiday time, and extra summer days.
- Father appealed, arguing 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325(1) (grandparent standing when a parent is deceased) violates his due process and equal protection rights and that 23 Pa.C.S. § 5337 (relocation) creates additional constitutional problems as applied with § 5325.
- The Superior Court applied plenary review of the statute's constitutionality and framed the dispute under strict scrutiny because parental custody decisions are a fundamental liberty interest.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Maternal Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5325(1) violates substantive due process (parental right to direct care/custody) | § 5325(1) automatically grants standing to grandparents upon a parent’s death even when the surviving parent already allows ongoing contact; statute not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest | Statute is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of protecting children and preserving relationships with deceased parent’s family by limiting standing to grandparents of a deceased parent | Court upheld § 5325(1) as surviving strict scrutiny under Hiller; no due process violation |
| Whether § 5325(1) violates equal protection by singling out widowed parents for court review | Widowers are treated differently from two‑parent households; the classification is not narrowly tailored | Classification is necessary to achieve the state’s compelling interest; cannot grant standing to grandparents of deceased parents without singling out widowers | Court held § 5325(1) does not violate equal protection |
| Whether § 5325(1) is distinguishable from precedent invalidating grandparent statutes (Troxel, D.P.) | Argued those cases compel invalidation here because statutes burden parental autonomy | Distinguishes Troxel and D.P.: § 5325(1) is limited to grandparents of deceased parents and thus materially different; Hiller controls | Court distinguished Troxel and D.P. and followed Hiller, finding § 5325(1) constitutional |
| Whether § 5337 (relocation) renders § 5325(1) unconstitutional as applied (frustrates parental relocation rights) | § 5337 combined with § 5325(1) lets grandparents frustrate a fit parent’s right to choose residence; facial/as‑applied constitutional problem | Challenge is premature because no relocation was proposed and no request was before the court | Court declined to reach § 5337 issue as advisory and premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Hiller v. Fausey, 588 Pa. 342, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006) (upheld a statute granting standing to grandparents whose child died; applied strict scrutiny and found statute narrowly tailored)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 636 Pa. 574, 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (held certain grandparent‑standing provisions unconstitutional; reaffirmed that parental custody decisions are a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an overly broad visitation statute that allowed "any person" to seek visitation; emphasized parental presumptive right to rear children)
- Schmehl v. Wegelin, 592 Pa. 581, 927 A.2d 183 (Pa. 2007) (statutory constitutionality is presumptively valid and reviewed plenarily; heavy burden on challenger)