L.M.B. v. D.B., 2261 EDA 2017

Background

Paternal grandparents (L.M.B. and R.B.) sued parents (D.B. and J.R.B.) seeking visitation with their granddaughter, who was born in April 2010.
Grandparents had frequently cared for the child from about 6 months to ~4 years old (≈3½ years) but contact ceased after the child made an allegation of inappropriate contact against the child’s step-grandfather in July 2014.
Grandparents allege they are now ill and want visitation before they die; parents are married and together and refuse visitation.
Trial court sustained parents’ preliminary objections for lack of statutory standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 and dismissed the complaint; grandparents appealed.
Grandparents raised a facial procedural due process and equal protection challenge to § 5325 (arguing the six‑month filing deadline in § 5325(3) is under-inclusive and impractical) but did not notify the Pennsylvania Attorney General as required when challenging a statute’s constitutionality.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding grandparents lacked standing under § 5325 and had waived their constitutional challenge by failing to give the required notice to the Attorney General; it noted parents’ liberty interest in deciding child associations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do grandparents have standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 to seek visitation?	Grandparents argued their longtime caregiving and abrupt severance of contact warrants court-ordered visitation.	Parents argued statutory standing prerequisites of § 5325 are not met here (parents alive, marriage intact, no 12‑month residence trigger).	No—grandparents lack standing under § 5325; none of its enumerated situations applied.
Does § 5325(3)’s six‑month filing deadline violate procedural due process as under‑inclusive?	Grandparents contended the deadline is unrealistic (illness, litigation, investigations) and denies access to court to vindicate liberty interests.	Parents argued the statute is valid and preserves parents’ liberty interest to control child associations; statute narrowly sets standing.	Waived—grandparents failed to notify the Attorney General as required, so the constitutional challenge was not preserved; court also indicated the protected liberty interest belongs to parents.
Do grandparents have an equal protection claim because divorced/deceased‑parent situations get greater access?	Grandparents claimed § 5325 benefits grandparents when parents are divorced or deceased, creating unequal access.	Parents asserted the legislature may limit third‑party standing to protect intact parental decisionmaking.	Waived along with due process claim; court did not reach merits but endorsed parental liberty interest rationale.
Should the court compel visitation over objection of intact parents?	Grandparents sought court direction to permit visitation based on prior relationship and current health concerns.	Parents maintained their right as fit, intact parents to decide associations; courts should not intrude absent statutory grounds.	No—court will not force visitation when parents are together and intact; precedent disfavors judicial intrusion absent statutory or dependency grounds.

Key Cases Cited

R.M. v. J.S., 20 A.3d 496 (Pa. Super. 2011) (§ 5325 permits grandparents to seek visitation)
D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (struck portion of § 5325(2) regarding six‑month separation; upheld portion tied to dissolution proceedings)
Herron v. Seizak, 468 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. 1983) (courts will not intrude on decisions of intact, fit parents to permit visitation)
Gradwell v. Strausser, 610 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 1992) (legislative limits on grandparent remedies protect against intrusion into intact families)
Potts v. Step By Step, Inc., 26 A.3d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to give Attorney General notice when challenging statute waives constitutional claim)
Hill v. Divechhio, 625 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. 1993) (party waived constitutional challenge to statute by failing to comply with notice requirements)