T.R. v. A.H. Appeal of: T.R.
166 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- A.B., born Oct. 2008, is the child of T.R. (Mother) and A.H. (Father); Mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody in Aug. 2015, Father given two hours supervised weekly physical custody.
- Grandparents (paternal) filed a petition to intervene on June 28, 2016 seeking standing to pursue partial physical custody under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325(2).
- After a hearing the trial court granted the petition; the court later reconsidered in light of D.P. v. G.J.P., which invalidated part of § 5325(2) as applied to parents separated six months.
- On Dec. 23, 2016 the trial court reaffirmed that Grandparents had standing under the surviving clause of § 5325(2); Mother appealed asserting equal protection and due process challenges to § 5325(2).
- Grandparents moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the order granting intervention was interlocutory because it did not finally resolve custody or dispose of all parties or claims.
- The Superior Court found the intervention order interlocutory (not final or collateral) and quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Grandparents’/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Dec. 23, 2016 order granting grandparents standing a final appealable order? | The standing order is final because grandparents have not yet sought relief and there is no further litigation pending. | The order is interlocutory; it leaves custody unresolved and does not dispose of all claims/parties. | Interlocutory; not final under Pa.R.A.P. 341(b); appeal quashed. |
| Does the collateral-order doctrine permit immediate appeal of the standing order? | Mother did not press this but argued constitutional rights are implicated. | Grandparents argued collateral-order doctrine does not apply because postponing review will not cause irreparable loss. | Collateral-order doctrine inapplicable: Mother’s rights were not irreparably lost and review can await a final custody order. |
| Is the surviving clause of § 5325(2) (parents who have commenced dissolution proceedings) unconstitutional as applied? | Mother contended the clause violates equal protection and due process (challenged under Fourteenth Amendment). | Trial court treated the constitutional challenge but maintained grandparents’ standing under § 5325(2). | Merits not reached — court lacked jurisdiction because order was interlocutory; constitutional challenge deferred to appeal from a final custody order. |
| Are the facts analogous to K.W. v. S.L. warranting immediate review? | Mother suggested urgency due to parental rights. | Grandparents/trial court argued Mother retains full custody and due process protections; no deprivation comparable to K.W. | Not analogous; unlike K.W., Mother retained custody and was not deprived of parental rights, so immediate review unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated portion of § 5325(2) as applied to parents separated at least six months)
- Stewart v. Foxworth, 65 A.3d 468 (Pa. Super. 2013) (appeal lies only from a final order unless rule or statute permits interlocutory appeal)
- G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 1996) (custody order is final only after merits hearings and intended as complete resolution)
- Beltran v. Piersody, 748 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2000) (order granting petition to intervene in custody action is interlocutory)
- K.W. v. S.L., 157 A.3d 498 (Pa. Super. 2017) (collateral-order doctrine allowed immediate appeal where parent was irreparably deprived of rights and due process protections)