P. and M.L. v. S.K. and R.L.
P. and M.L. v. S.K. and R.L. No. 1315 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Child (H.K.) is two years old and has lived with foster parents since discharge from hospital at two weeks old; mother tested positive for Subutex at birth.
- Father (R.L.) was incarcerated, did not acknowledge paternity on the birth certificate, but a DNA test in Dec. 2014 established paternity; father largely did not participate in dependency proceedings until 2016 and mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights in April 2016.
- Paternal grandparents filed a custody complaint in April 2016 seeking primary custody/visitation; permanency review hearing held July 11, 2016; trial court denied custody and ordered Act 101 mediation and Family Team Conferencing before any visitation.
- Expert psychologist (Dr. Rosenblum) reported that Child has a strong primary attachment to foster parents and that removal or abrupt introduction to new caregivers could cause trauma and adjustment problems; trial court relied on that report.
- Trial court found foster parents provided stability, met Child’s developmental and emotional needs, and that paternal grandparents had virtually no prior relationship with Child due largely to Father’s failure to inform them.
- Trial court denied grandparents’ custody claim and refused unsupervised visitation outside Act 101 mediation; appeal followed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Father/CYF/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to apply 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 custody factors | Trial court did not apply custody factors properly | Court did apply factors but noted they are hard to apply where petitioners had no prior relationship with child; accepted credibility findings | Trial court applied factors; no abuse of discretion — affirmed |
| Whether introducing/reuniting child with grandparents would be traumatic and therefore improper | Grandparents argued introduction would not be traumatic and visitation should be allowed | Trial court relied on psychologist that abrupt change could cause trauma and attachment disorder; cautious approach required | Reliance on expert supported; trial court did not err — affirmed |
| Whether visitation should be permitted outside Act 101 mediation | Grandparents argued visitation should be allowed without waiting for mediation | CYF/trial court required Act 101 mediation/Family Team Conferencing first given child’s attachment and best interest concerns | Court properly required mediation first; no abuse of discretion — affirmed |
| Whether CYF failed to perform kinship search / denied grandparents kinship placement | Grandparents argued CYF did not properly identify or consider them for kinship placement | Record showed father failed to disclose child’s existence to grandparents and CYF did not learn of grandparents until they contacted agency; placement decisions permissible given child’s best interest | Trial court reasonably attributed delay to Father and found no reversible error in kinship process — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541 (Pa. Super. 2013) (best-interest custody standard and factor analysis)
- S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate standard of review in custody cases; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (respect for trial court discretion in custody matters due to witness observation)
- Jackson v. Beck, 858 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2004) (same principle of deference to trial court observations)
- In re C.J.R., 782 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. 2001) (affirming denial of transfer of custody from foster parents to relatives where child would face adjustment difficulties)
- In re Adoption of G.R.L., 26 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Super. 2011) (family preservation weighed with other factors; kinship/placement considerations)
- In the Interest of James John M., 482 A.2d 637 (Pa. Super. 1984) (grandparent bears heavy burden to justify custody from a parent; parental preference where appropriate)
- In re J.P., 998 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discussion of kinship care as subset of foster care)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court may decline kinship placement where aggravated circumstances or risk to child exist)