M.W. v. S.T.
196 A.3d 1065
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Grandmother filed a custody complaint (March 6, 2017) for her grandchildren while they were adjudicated dependent and temporarily placed with relatives; she previously sought to intervene in the juvenile dependency proceedings (Sept. 29, 2016) but was denied.
- Children were returned to parents' care and the juvenile court closed the dependency on June 21, 2017.
- Parents and Grandmother repeatedly failed to complete required pre‑conference steps (FOCUS seminar) and conferences were continued; Grandmother also sought continuances for health reasons.
- Parents moved to dismiss Grandmother’s custody complaint on standing grounds, arguing 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 no longer permitted her to proceed once the dependency was closed and children were reunified.
- Trial court granted dismissal (April 16, 2018); Grandmother appealed, arguing standing should be measured at the time she filed the complaint and that the dependency adjudication should still support her claim.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding standing may be re‑evaluated after material changes (e.g., closure of dependency) and a closed dependency cannot be bootstrapped into a custody claim absent an independent risk showing under § 5324(3)(iii)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Grandmother's Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324 should be assessed at time complaint filed or can be re‑evaluated after changed circumstances | Standing should be judged based on facts at time complaint filed (children were dependent then) | Standing may be re‑evaluated when circumstances change; dependency closure eliminated § 5324(3)(iii)(A) basis | Standing may be re‑evaluated; court correctly considered status when dismissal was sought and found standing ended after dependency closed |
| Whether a prior dependency adjudication permanently grants grandparent standing for custody/partial custody | Dependency adjudication while complaint pending suffices even after closure; potential future risk justifies continued standing | Closed dependency does not continue to confer standing absent current basis in statute | Grandmother may not "bootstrap" a closed dependency to obtain custody; must show an independent current statutory basis |
| Whether § 5324(3)(iii)(A) is ambiguous as to timing or duration of “has been determined to be a dependent child” | Statute does not indicate termination of standing when dependency is later closed | § 5324 requires present applicability; change in status is material | Any ambiguity resolved by presumption favoring parental rights; closed dependency does not suffice without current statutory predicate |
| Whether Grandmother could have pursued relief under § 5324(3)(iii)(B) (substantial risk) | She asserted potential for renewed issues would justify standing | She did not plead or argue current substantial risk; her request was for visitation due to lost access | Court noted she did not pursue § 5324(3)(iii)(B); her stated goal (partial custody to get visitation) is not a substitute for showing current risk |
Key Cases Cited
- K.W. v. S.L., 157 A.3d 498 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standing in custody matters reviewed de novo)
- D.G. v. D.B., 91 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standing doctrine and limits on third‑party custody suits)
- M.G. v. L.D., 155 A.3d 1083 (Pa. Super. 2017) (re‑evaluation of standing after changed circumstances)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (constitutional limits on grandparent standing provisions)
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (appealability of orders denying intervention in custody/dependency contexts)
- In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117 (Pa. Super. 2009) (intervention by foster parents in dependency cases)
- In the Interest of B.S., 923 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2007) (assumed jurisdiction over denial of intervention by grandmother in dependency proceeding)