K.W. v. S.L.
157 A.3d 498
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child born Aug 2015; Father (K.W.) is biological father; Mother (G.G.) contacted adoption agency Bethany Christian Services (BCS) and Child was placed with prospective adoptive couple (Appellees) two days after birth.
- BCS made limited attempts to contact Father from March–Sept 2015; Father first learned Child was placed with prospective adoptive parents and by mid‑October 2015 informed BCS he opposed adoption and filed for custody soon after.
- Multiple custody filings followed in different counties; interim custody was awarded to Appellees while proceedings continued and the actions were consolidated in York County.
- Father filed preliminary objections arguing Appellees lacked standing because they were not in loco parentis with his consent; the trial court denied the objections and held Appellees had in loco parentis standing based on implied consent.
- Father appealed; appellate court found the August 8, 2016 order appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine because parental fundamental rights would be irreparably lost by postponing review.
- Court vacated the trial court’s order, holding Father did not consent (expressly or impliedly) to Appellees’ in loco parentis status and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Appellees’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability under collateral‑order doctrine | Order denying preliminary objections is collateral and must be reviewable now to protect parental rights | Order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable | Court: collateral‑order applies; parental rights would be irreparably lost, so appealable |
| Whether Appellees stand in loco parentis | Father: Appellees lack in loco parentis because he never consented and he promptly opposed adoption and filed for custody | Appellees: they assumed parental duties from birth and Father’s delay amounts to implied consent | Court: Father did not consent; in loco parentis cannot be conferred over a parent’s objection; trial court erred |
| Can consent to in loco parentis be implied | Father: Pennsylvania law requires consent/knowledge and does not support implied consent here | Appellees: Father’s initial lack of involvement/evidence of delay supports implied consent | Court: No recognized doctrine of implied consent in these circumstances; facts align with precedent denying in loco status where parent objected |
| Remedy / procedural posture | Father: dismissal of Appellees’ standing now protects his constitutional parental rights | Appellees: contends standing should be litigated in custody merits | Court: Vacated trial court order; remanded to enter order granting Father’s preliminary objections and proceed consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (orders denying intervention/standing in custody cases can qualify as collateral orders because parental interests require immediate review)
- Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006) (parental right to make decisions concerning care, custody, and control is a fundamental due process interest)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (emphasizes presumption of parental fitness and the screening function of early standing resolution under the Child Custody Act)
- B.A. v. E.E. ex rel. C.E., 741 A.2d 1227 (Pa. 1999) (third parties may not obtain in loco parentis status in defiance of a parent’s express objection)
- Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. 2005) (defines in loco parentis as assuming parental obligations and duties without formal adoption)
- E.W. v. T.S., 916 A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2007) (reaffirms that in loco parentis status cannot be achieved without the consent and knowledge of the parent)