*1 608 A.2d Lynn In re ADOPTION OF Melanie HESS and Matthew James Hess.
APPEAL OF FAMILY SERVICE.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Dec. 1990. April Decided *2 Kain, Crosswell, George Hay and Lancaster William C. III, York, amicus, York Children and Youth County for Services. Lancaster, Hambrick-Stowe, Carol and for
Elizabeth David Hess. Kilkuskie, John Jane Doe. Ephrata, for and Anthony
A. Lancaster, litem, ad guardian Stengel, Lawrence F. Hess. Melanie and Matthew LARSEN, FLAHERTY, NIX, C.J.,
Before jj. ZAPPALA, CAPPY, McDERMOTT, PAPADAKOS and OPINION NIX, Chief Justice. the issue of appeal
The the Court with presents instant permitted participate whether grandchildren. their for the of an reversal order Superior arises from the Court’s appeal Court, Pleas Orphans’ Common County the Lancaster Complaint for Division, dismissing grandparents’ Court proceed- to Intervene state Custody and Petition ings after parents’ rights grandchildren instituted to the were terminated. prior
Sometime to June Lynn Melanie and Mat- Hess, thew James four five-year siblings, old placed in of the Family and Children’s Service County Lancaster their birth parents, Tina Marie Hess and Kenneth 25,1987, John Hess. On September Tina Marie Hess and Kenneth Hess John executed Consents to At Adoption. time, the same approximately the Family and Children’s placed Service the children in adoptive 6, 1987, home. Reports On November of Intent to Adopt were filed by persons having custody Lynn Melanie Hess and Matthew James Hess. Service of Lancaster filed a Petition County pursuant Confirm Consents to the provisions Section
2504 of Adoption hearing the Act. A on petition the was 24, 1987, scheduled for November and proper notice of the sent hearing parents. was to the natural After hearing, the a Final Decree by was issued the trial court confirming the consents and the parental terminating rights of Tina Marie Hess and Kenneth John Hess. This Final custody Decree transferred of the children to the of Family County, Service Lancaster and granted the Fami- ly Service “... full authority consent to the of the minor children ... further without consent of or notifi- cation to Tina Marie Hess or Kenneth John Hess.”
The have asserted repeatedly were not informed that the placed children were being with June, Family They Services claim that when they were told of the finally parents’ put intentions to the for up adoption, they children attempted to obtain from Family Services information as to the children’s where- sought abouts and an opportunity to express their desire to provide a home for the and children to reunite them with their The siblings. grandparents claim that their efforts Service, consistently were Family rebuffed which re- fused to them give any information until January when they parental notified that the rights had been time, Hess Com- Mr. Mrs. filed a and terminated. At that adoption, the to obtain seeking enjoin plaint Equity intervene, complaint other relief. was and leave Complaint Orphans’ to refile the dismissed with leave Court. filed in the Or-
On March and Proceed- Stay to Intervene Court a “Petition phans’ Custody “Partial for and ings,” “Complaint Custody,” constitution- Visitation,” claiming personal that their and/or Act,1 Adoption provisions rights, al well as Act,3 Act,2 entitled and and the Juvenile Children Minors seek and to to intervene in the them natural had custody grandchildren after granted preliminary The trial terminated. court been Service, grandpar- and dismissed the objections hearing. complaint and without petition ents’ Court, which grandparents appealed Superior to the order, adoption pro- stayed trial court’s reversed the matter to the trial court ceedings, remanded In complaint. on hearings grandparent’s petition Hess, 386 562 A.2d Pa.Super. re court, in (1989). The that the trial Superior Court found child, interests of the must consider ascertaining the best Where, as on those interests. Id. bearing evidence all here, party seeking to the action has lived intervene child, siblings, his or her with the has obtained contrary the child’s interests are and has averred that best summary trial court’s agency, to those asserted *4 to of complaint of amounts a default party’s dismissal that determine the child’s best interest. responsibility its that to this Service decision Court. Family appealed dis- Superior claims that the Court abused its Appellant Family Pleas. reversing in the Court of Common cretion argues biological parents voluntarily once the that Service the children placed and parental terminated seq. et Pa.C.S. § 1. 23
2. seq. et Pa.C.S. seq. et
with the agency placement home, an adoptive rights of biological other relatives also Appellant cease. submits that contrary question result would call into propriety finality adoptions in the Commonwealth. Additionally, Family Service contends permitting that appel- lees to unnecessary, intervene is because Service consenting has no intention of to the grandparents adoption insists, the children. Appellant and the trial court agreed, that the grandparents recognized have no legal and, therefore, interest in the adoption proceedings are not participate. stated, entitled to As the trial court guardians children, are not nor are they the custodians of the adoptees since decree of termination custody was awarded to the Family and Chil- dren’s Service with authority consent to the adoption. of the grandparents consent required since they are not a party interest proceed- Thus, ings. the preliminary objections to the Petition to and Stay Proceedings Intervene must be sustained. Since the not a grandparents are in interest party no right adoption proceedings, have appear dur- ing the pendency such and demand custo- dy, partial custody and/or visitation. Hess, 2211/2,
In re Adoption slip No. op. at 3-4 (Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, April 21, 1988) added). (emphasis argue, however, that
Appellees the Superior Court cor- determined rectly the trial court’s refusal consider the grandparents’ was an assertions abdication of its duty consider all facts bearing upon a determination of the child’s follow, best interests. For reasons we agree assertions, appellees’ with the Superior we affirm Court.
Rule Procedure, Rules of Pennsylvania Civil 2327, governs Pa.R.Civ.P. intervention in a cause action. In pertinent the rule part, provides following guidelines:
223 May Intervene Who Rule 2327. action, person of an pendency the during
At time any intervene there- to permitted shall be not a thereto party if in, rules to these subject
[******] original party as an (3) person joined such could have therein. joined or could have been the action grand- the stated, found that the trial court As previously The trial proceedings. had no interest however, of wheth- determination, begs question court’s themselves entitled to inject ever er the the best designed to effectuate of proceedings into a series where, as grandchildren, especially of their interests two these children. Under here, adopt they sought reasons, following and for the guidelines, to intervene. permitted should have been the issues noting begin analysis by our We of custody, matters concern appeal, raised while court obtained issues. The considered as must be necessary of the filing matter by over this jurisdiction set motion filings Act. Those Adoption under the papers adop with placed and Matthew to have Melanie to inter sought grandparents’ petition parents. tive possible, we Wherever adoption proceedings. vene inAct Adoption guided specifications must be See, Adoption Matter making e.g., our determination. (1982). A.2d 1314 445 Pa.Super. Sturgeon, that must procedures forth specific Act sets its a child. Under seeking adopt by party followed terminated, indi “[a]ny parental rights once provisions, 23 Pa.C.S. adopting parent.” an vidual become § Report must first file a adopt a child seeking A party 2531(c). report A is also Adopt. 23 Pa.C.S. Intention an arranged adoption, intermediary who filed suitability is conducted to determine investigation proposed 2535. Once adoption. Pa.C.S. § feasible, adoption procedure to be is determined Adopt A Petition seq. 2701 et commenced. Pa.C.S. § necessary filed, any obtain and the court shall must be 2711(a).4 The court consents to the adoption. *6 hearing then holds a for a final determination whether entered. 23 Pa.C.S. 2721. the decree should be § of the stages At all of the the best interest proceedings, See, 23 Pa.C.S. paramount child is the consideration. 2902(a).5 § no argues pre that Family correctly
While
Service
equally
it is
sumption
grandparents,
exists
favor
against
Conversely,
true that no
exists
them.
presumption
might choose to
contemplates
grandparent
the Act
that a
grandparent
and
adopt
grandchild,
his or her
allows
relieving
to the child
relationship
benefit from the
of Intention
obligation
Report
to file a
grandparent
2531(c).
Act
23
Thus while the
does
Adopt.
Pa.C.S. §
it
grandparent’s adoption,
a
for a
preference
not reflect
consid
grandparents
being
exclude
from
clearly does not
A grandparent seek
prospective adoptive parents.6
ered as
her
also must
indicate his or
ing
adopt
grandchild
a
23
Adopt.
that child in the Petition to
relationship to
rela
2701(1). This
indicates that a
requirement
Pa.C.S. §
adoptive parent
and
tionship
proposed
between
is a relevant consideration.
adoptee
Act, 23 Pa.
under the Children and Minors
Additionally,
seq.,
et
5301,
to seek
grandparents
right
have the
C.S.
§
until the
custody
grandchildren
and/or
of their
visitation
or
adopted
stepparent
children are
someone other than a
dem-
23
5314. This statute
grandparent.
Pa.C.S. §§
part
Pennsylvania
an intention on the
onstrates
infra,
the statute.
4. See
n. 5 for the text of
Requirements
and form of decree of
5.
2902.
(a)
peti-
that the statements made in the
General rule. —If satisfied
true,
person proposed
to be
that the needs and welfare of
tion are
promoted by
adoption and that all
requirements
adopted will be
met,
finding
part
enter a decree so
of this
have been
the court shall
directing
person proposed
adopted shall have all
to be
rights
adopting parent or
child and heir of the
subject
them.
to the duties of a child to him or
shall be
added).
(emphasis
Indeed,
grandparents
successfully
society
many examples
our
has
raising
grandchildren.
their
relation
encourage
family
the maintenance
legislature
rele
especially
which is
ships
possible,
policy
wherever
instance,
grandparents already
vant
because
See,
siblings.
e.g., Albright
have
of the children’s
rel., Fetters, 491 Pa.
421 A.2d
v. Commonwealth ex
(1980)
par
given custody
opposed
(grandparents
keep siblings together);
ents where
would
(1985). More
Pilon,
Finally, we think it important emphasize per- that by intervene, mitting grandparents guaran- we teeing they prevail. will there Certainly may legiti- be factors, mate infirmities, such as health or might which be against Nevertheless, construed the grandparents. they permitted should be participate proceeding just as other any individual or individuals seek adopt who child. A child’s interests are best served when all those who demonstrate an interest his or her welfare are Therefore, least, allowed to be heard. at the very grandparents should have been welcomed agency to offer what information could relation to grand- children’s best interests. That the agency has taken the opposite position regrettable; is that the court sanctioned actions, agency’s justification, without a substantive determined, Superior Court completely unacceptable. is
Accordingly, Superior the order of the Court is affirmed. FLAHERTY, J., dissenting files a opinion which CAPPY, ZAPPALA JJ., join.
ZAPPALA, J., files dissenting opinion.
FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting.
Understandably majority has strained to reach a harsh, result which does not appear but so doing has seriously frustrated the clearly expressed legislative Thus, of adoption. scheme I must dissent.
The children who are the subject present adoption Hess, proceedings, Melanie and Matthew are a sister and brother, who, commenced, at the time litigation years age five and four Melanie and respectively. Mat- agency, responsible represent- 9. We are shocked that the which is for children, ing any the interests of the would refuse to entertain evi- bearing contrary dence on that determination which to their personal light opinion, own views. We are certain that in of this agency request would consider the objectivity applied any applicant. with the other *9 siblings siblings, have four but the are not involved thew lives, their during this case. At times Melanie and various Matthew, siblings, parents their and their natural resided grandmother stepgrandfather, with their maternal and the the appellees This was due to the fact that natural herein. parents securing housing had suitable them- difficulty During time, of this selves and their six children. much care children provided by substantial for all was grandmother. 1985, parents grandparents
In informed the natural and, hence, housing, had other removed all they located grandparents’ grand of their children from the home. learned, however, all children parents later had agency with a social in Lancaster Coun placed been service children, but not the involved in this ty. Several two case, custody soon their grandpar returned were In and were returned to their ents. Melanie Matthew 1987, however, they In the parents. spring natural were again parents from the of their natural custody removed placed agency. grandpar and with the social service In agency custody. ents then contacted the obtained natural father removed Melanie and Mat June of home and them to grandparents’ from took Chil thew Lancaster County (Family dren and Services of Family Service).* by grandparents Later efforts to have the by Service to no avail. Family two children returned were then their parents voluntarily relinquished The natural Melanie A parental rights respect with and Matthew. parental rights entered under terminating decree was of the two children was P.S. award- placed ed Service children Family Service. * residence as the children had been in with Inasmuch only removed period a few months when for a father, statutory present case a situation where the does provision partial or allowing certain of visitation provision custody, been This could have invoked. grand- applicable where has with his it is a “child resided states that period subsequently or ... for a of months more and parents____’’ from home his removed
229 proposed with filed adoptive parents petition who for adoption.
Upon learning filed, that a petition adoption had been grandparents intervene, petition filed a to to stay adoption to proceedings, and obtain of Melanie and custody that, Matthew. They alleged inasmuch as had previ- taken ously care of the two children and in custody their siblings, the best interests of Melanie and Matthew would be served by awarding grandparents. to the preliminary Service filed that objections alleging grandparents standing lacked The prelimi- intervene. nary objections were sustained Court of Common Pleas, the petition was The Superior dismissed. Court reversed, holding that the grandparents standing had intervene, and reasoning that consideration of the best interests of the children allowing favored intervention I grandparents. disagree, and would reverse.
It is certainly may understandable concerned adoption about proceedings involving grand- their Indeed, children. in perhaps most families grandparents develop an interest and concern for grandchildren is not readily extinguished aby parents’ termination of the Nevertheless, rights. under principles basic govern- law ing standing legislative under the policy ex- clearly laws, pressed adoption it must be concluded that legally cognizable have no interest grandchildren. of their Where, here, as the natural have decree, been terminated aby court the effect is to terminate the interests of others relationship whose to the children is from the parental derived relationship. This is a necessary of our consequence adoption laws effectively which sever a child from its family own tree. As stated in Harvey Adop- Case, 1, 3, 276, (1953), tion 375 Pa. 99 A.2d 277 “a decree of adoption terminates forever all relations between the child and its parents, natural severs it entirely its own from engrafts upon tree and it that of its family parentage: new Case, 534, 536, 504, Schwab 355 Pa. 50 A.2d 505.” 230 149, Appeal, added). 452 Pa. Chambers Accord
(Emphasis (1973). 360, it 305 A.2d 363 While be viewed family a child from its own policy harsh treat as severed adoption, policy as a of an is a sound one. tree result described in Faust v. was aptly therefor rationale 155, 160-61, 1353 Messinger, Pa.Super. A.2d dismissed, (1987): (1985), appeal Pa. A.2d 741 pertaining The entire of law harmonizes body natural adopted in order to an child shoes of a place biologi- respects, failing only child in all alter the legal *11 makeup the child. The intention and result of cal of as to adopted is to enfold an child its new so family law siblings from indistinguishable every possi- his new respect. ble parental and filial
Rights changed; of inheritance are altered; are are substitut- rights and duties birth records ed; possible are In adoption impounded. every records all are thus respect, family relationships reestablished and all ties with the natural adopting family within are eradicated. family added).
(Emphasis Where, case, have been present parental rights in the occurred, not the termi- adoption yet terminated but an has serves as the in the parental rights logically point nation of at ties with the child’s natural adoption proceeding which all severed, there Once those ties have been family ended. The family. no for intervention the natural is basis standing case lack to maintain an grandparents action, therefore, have no enforceable they legally because of adoption proceeding. in the See interest outcome v. Township generally South Whitehall Police Service Township, 521 Pa. A.2d South Whitehall 555 (1989) requires legal subject- interest in the (standing 795 2327(4) litigation). (permit- matter of the See also Pa.R.C.P. action to ting person party not a to an intervene where legally of such affect any “the determination action ”). of such ... person enforceable interest adop- in an Further, to intervene permitting grandparents parents natural have consented proceeding, tion after the been terminated adoption parental rights and their have an Act, with the Pa.C.S. compliance full § established seq., adoption process et would frustrate the legislature intended that legislature. Clearly, permit parents of the natural would be sufficient consent (volun- 2501-2504 adoption an to occur. See Pa.C.S. § adoption of an tary relinquishment parental permits proceed). grand- of participation has not made legislature process, where the consent parents a factor Indeed, notice parents given. of has been parental to confirm consents to hearings years are under 18 required, except parents even where 2504(b). 2503(b); 23 age. 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. § § years of Melanie and Matthew were 25 and 34 parents adoption. at executed their consents to age the time too, has legislature expressly provided Significantly, consent required is not when parental rights, where parents relinquish wish even age. are under 18 23 Pa.C.S. years 2501(b); 2502(b). a plain legis- This evinces *12 grandparents regarded lative intent are not to be in the having cognizable legal proceeding. interest to Moreover, incongruous grandparents it would be allow in in cases where the participate adoption proceedings participation. natural excluded from parents statutorily 2521(a) provided In 23 it is that a decree terminat- Pa.C.S. § extinguish right “shall or the ing parental rights power adoption to or receive notice of parent object legislature did not intend that a proceedings.” surely biological participate child’s other relatives would be free to parents in from which the natural were exclud- logic jeopardize and would defy ed. Such a scheme would functioning adoption pro- the smooth and efficient provide cess. It also an avenue for relatives to would terminating parental frustrate circumvent decrees 232
rights. Quite legislature has plainly, established an process that makes adoption dependent upon alone, upon actions of the rather than the actions of biological permit biological other relatives. To relatives in grandparents participate such as the adoption process, changes existing legislative policy required. would be in
Allowing intervention the name of the best interests of inadequately children would take into account that the legislatively adoption process designed established was fully safeguard proposed adoptees. the interests of Once terminated, parental rights have been interests of best are, course, in paramount the child any adoption proceed- D.J.Y., 125, n.*, 1387, ing. In re 487 Pa. 132 408 A.2d 1391 (1979). Nevertheless, n.* govern while the best interests adoptive parent, selection an it does not follow that by persons contemplated intervention not legislature should If the be allowed. “best interests” rationale is invoked to permit by grandparents intervention proceedings, conceivably the door be also to may open others, not, related or and thus the legislative- time-honored ly plan adoption may impaired. ordained be seriously scheme, however, legislative clear, is quite and serves thus, I good purpose; grandparents do find basis for intervene. noted, too,
It
that a
decision
standing
lack
to intervene would be
accord with the rule
jurisdictions,
followed most other
that intervention by
generally
has
been denied where natural par
ents have consented to an adoption. See Christian Place
Gordon,
465,
(1985)
102 N.M.
ment Service v.
ZAPPALA and ZAPPALA, Justice, dissenting. lacks appeal, has emotional but majority’s opinion struggle I to under- underlying restraint. sense an
judicial to make a decision stand what forces would lead siblings children from and other separate their that would under- I not that I know or pretend relatives. do blood understand, however, that the law stand, I do either. I rights. under- parental to terminate their permits parents stand, too, empathy I that as a cannot allow jurist the law. displace all those
“A interests are best served when who child’s interest his or her welfare allowed demonstrate an 15) at touts “the best (Op. majority be heard.” if it a It is cry. interests of the child” as battle meaning used so. The stirring, empty but when anyone, not forum where even a proceeding public is relative, placement the court that may attempt persuade applicant. of the child should be with I that the would allow an indi- majority cannot conceive who was unrelated to the child to intervene vidual financially if such individual was and emo- proceeding even capable taking care of the child. Understand- tionally if so, bidding process not a well- is ably —even then should it be that a relative Why intentioned. A person to intervene. who is not a permitted child will be if the action will not to an action intervene party person. interest of the Inter- legally affect enforceable any concern; right legally is more than it is est enforceable. has taken care Flaherty Justice Dissenting Opinion,
In his concern and the difference between such explain I Adoption Act. need not parties under the interests *14 his The law not be what repeat explication. desires, ignored. are all illserved when it is majority but we I dissent.
v. CRISPELL, Appellant.
Daniel L. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued Sept. 1991. April Decided