In re Interest of K.N.L.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1 EAP 2022 |
| Citation | 284 A.3d 121 |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF K.N.L., a Minor Appeal of: L.B. a/k/a T.B. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Marie Regine Charles-Asar, Esq., Aaron A. Mixon, Esq., Mixon, Charles-Asar & Associates, LLC, for Appellant.
Robert D. Aversa, Esq., Philadelphia Law Department, Kathleen Bola Kim, Esq., City of Philadelphia Law Department, Michael Jeffrey Mon, Esq., Deputy City Solicitor, for Appellee Department of Human Services.
Barry M. Kassel, Esq., Support Center for Child Advocates (The), Judy McIntire Springer, Esq., Astor, Weiss, Kaplan & Mandel, LLP, for Appellee K.L., a Minor.
Pierre Eric Simonvil, Esq., Uptown Philly Lawyer, Ltd., for Appellee D.M.
OPINION
We granted discretionary review to examine whether the lower courts applied appropriate standards for evaluating, and rejecting, a former caregiver's asserted in loco parentis status for purposes of standing to intervene in a proceeding to adopt a child in the custody of a foster care agency, pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101 - 2938. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand with instructions for a hearing in the juvenile court de novo .
History of the case
K.N.L. (the child), born in March of 2010, was adjudicated dependent and committed to the custody of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) in 2015; she has resided in various foster homes for seven years, since just after turning five years old. The parental rights of the child's biological parents were terminated involuntarily on March 6, 2017, and on the same date, the juvenile court vacated the custodial and visitation rights of the child's former caregiver, R.B.P., who had been the legal guardian at the time she entered foster care.1 With the child's parents and guardian removed as parties, custody of the child transferred to DHS, and further review of the dependency matter proceeded on the juvenile court's adoption docket.2 See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2521(b) () and (c) (agency receiving custody "shall stand in loco parentis to the child" and "shall have [such] authority ... concerning the child as a natural parent could exercise"). In 2018, with the support and consent of DHS, the child's foster parent filed a report of intention to adopt and petition to adopt the child, and completed all investigations and evaluations required to finalize the adoption. Prior to the finalization, the child's biological maternal aunt, D.M., filed a motion to intervene in the adoption matter as well as a petition to adopt the child. Thereafter, the child was removed from the pre-adoptive foster home and the foster parent requested to withdraw her pending adoption petition, which the court granted on September 17, 2019.
Subsequently, appellant T.B.,3 who is the adult child of former guardian R.B.P., also sought to intervene in the proceeding to adopt the child. By motion to intervene filed December 12, 2019, appellant claimed he had been a romantic partner and longtime friend of the child's biological mother, as well as a live-in parental caregiver for the child from the time she was four days old until her removal from R.B.P.’s home, and has since maintained contact and a strong parental bond with the child; these factors, he asserted, demonstrated in loco parentis status4 and established his standing to intervene in the adoption. See Motion to Intervene of [T].B., 12/12/2019, at 1-2. On January 3, 2020, appellant also filed a petition to adopt the child.
The established facts indicate the child's biological mother was incarcerated at the time of her birth in March of 2010, and has been incarcerated for all but a few months of the child's life. Biological mother relinquished care and custody of the newborn to R.B.P., and a few days later appellant, who had also been in jail on the day the child was born, joined his own mother and the child in R.B.P.’s home. Juvenile Court Op., 3/24/2021, at 2, 6, citing Testimony of [T].B., N.T. 1/26/2021 at 30. They resided and cared for the child together for the next five years. Id. , citing N.T. at 16. The child's biological mother also lived with them for approximately five months, after which she ultimately returned to prison. Id. , citing N.T. at 18. The child identified R.B.P. as "Mama" and appellant as "Dada." See In re K.L. , 2016 WL 2353033, at *1 n.2. The child's removal from R.B.P.’s home in 2015 occurred during DHS's investigation of a child protective services (CPS) report raising abuse allegations against R.B.P., which later included allegations against appellant as well. Juvenile Court Op., 3/24/2021, at 1-2, citing N.T. at 19, 21. Appellant was not named as a party in the dependency petition, is not on the child's birth certificate, and has never been a legal guardian. Id., citing N.T. at 22-23.
The record5 further reveals the abuse allegations were unfounded.6 See In re K.L. , 2016 WL 2353033, at *1, 4. However, during the investigation, it became apparent the five-year-old child had significant, aggressive and sexualized behavioral health issues which, in the court's view, R.B.P. was not adequately addressing. Id. The juvenile court, following an off-the-record sidebar conversation and stipulation by counsel, stated on the record he suspected appellant (who was not a party to the proceeding and does not appear on the docket as present at the hearing) was responsible for "whatever happened" and acknowledged testimony to the effect appellant no longer lived with R.B.P.7 Id. at *4. The court ultimately adjudicated the child dependent under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301 - 6375, based on a finding the child was without proper parental care and control. See id. at *3-4 ; Interest of K.L , 2018 WL 1322572, at *2, 6 ; Dependency Docket entry dated 8/3/2015; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1) ().
From commencement of the dependency case until the juvenile court vacated her custodial rights two years later, R.B.P. was named alongside the child's biological parents as a party to the dependency proceeding; as a result, she was appointed counsel, attended hearings, exercised visitation and educational rights, and was engaged in the family's case plan as a reunification resource. The docket entries do not list appellant as a person in attendance at any of the hearings. See Dependency Docket, entries dated 4/2/2015-11/14/2016.8 In seeking intervention, appellant averred he "has always been a placement and visitation resource since the child has been deemed dependent." Motion to Intervene at 2.
Adoption court proceeding
The juvenile court scheduled a hearing on appellant's motion to intervene for January 26, 2021. Although there were no responsive motions or preliminary objections to appellant's motion, and the parties did not exchange exhibits or offers of proof, the child advocate filed a pretrial memorandum the day before the hearing which included a list of potential witnesses and exhibits, and a statement asserting opposition to appellant's standing. Child Advocate's Pre-Trial Memorandum, 1/25/2021, at 6-8. Appellant was the only witness at the hearing, which was virtual. His testimony proceeded without objection. He explained his relationship to the child was as her previous caretaker and they both identified him as her dad; he had been engaged to the child's mother at one time, they later planned to raise a child together, and because they were both in jail on the day the child was born, he called his mother (R.B.P.) from prison and asked her to "get [his] daughter," which she did. N.T. at 30. Along with R.B.P., appellant took the child to medical appointments, registered her for preschool, and took her there and back every day. According to appellant, when the child was removed from the home, he presented himself as a placement resource, but was ruled out and does not know why; he had some contact with the child since her removal and has attempted to maintain a relationship with her. Appellant agreed there had been allegations of abuse made against him as well as his mother, but the petition to remove the child was filed against his mother and the child's mother only.
When asked why he did not file for legal custody, appellant testified he was attempting to get parts of his criminal record expunged of charges acquired as a juvenile, though they were certified as adult charges.9 He provided the dates of those and subsequent charges and answered questions about them; the court observed the felony charges on appellant's record, which could not be expunged, included theft charges and were crimen falsi . The child advocate began to cross-examine appellant regarding the child abuse allegations, however the court halted the line of questioning. Appellant then testified he has since become a certified foster parent, which required him to submit to clearances and background checks, and has had one foster child in his care for a year. He also provided the court with a home investigation report and safety plan from an early stage of DHS's 2015 investigation, prior to the child's (K.N.L.’s) removal, which listed appellant and R.B.P. as the adult caregivers in the home, noted the child had made allegations against R.B.P., and noted the child was safe in the home with appellant assigned as the responsible party to supervise. See Safety Plan dated 3/22/2015, [T].B. Exhibit 1.
No other evidence was provided. DHS and the child advocate stated their objections to appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gennock v. Kirkland's Inc.
... ... 2022) (citations omitted). In these ... circumstances, "the question involved is whether the ... interest the plaintiff seeks to protect is arguably within ... the zone of interests to be protected by the statute ... Accordingly, the answer ... ...
-
Budai v. Country Fair, Inc.
...action in Pennsylvania courts, legislative enactments may further enlarge or distill these judicially-applied principles." Int. of K.N.L., 284 A.3d 121, 136-37 (Pa. 2022) (citations omitted). In these circumstances, "the question involved is whether the interest the plaintiff seeks to prote......
-
In re M.M.
...that would have required Mother to "discharge" her "parental duties," and for Appellant to assume the same. See, e.g., Interest of K.N.L., 284 A.3d 121, 145 (Pa. 2022). Although Appellant, by her own admission, moved into the home to help Mother care for the Children, Appellant was ultimate......