Media Center

Family Law Update

March 16, 2015
Publications

Grandmother Denied In Loco Parentis Standing, But Door Left Open For Grandparent Standing

by Anthony Hoover

D.G. & D.G. v. D.B.& G.V., 91 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. May 2, 2014)

The D.G. & D.G. v. D.B. & G.V. custody action was originally commenced in 2009 when Grandmother sought partial physical custody of the Child, E.B. (“Child”). In January 2010, the parties reached an agreement where Mother retained primary custody, and Grandmother received partial custody on weekends. In March 2013, Grandmother and Step-Grandfather filed a petition for primary custody of the Child. The basis of the Grandparent’s request for primary custody was their care of the Child, financial support of the Child, and Mother’s failure to provide adequate care of the Child. Mother’s lack of care included instances where the Child would return from school and be locked out of Mother’s apartment, missing several days of school, and missing doctor’s appointments.

The trial court granted Grandmother in loco parentis standing and primary physical custody. The trial court relied on the fact that four years prior, Mother and the Child resided with Grandmother, Grandmother provided financial assistance, and Grandmother had a strong relationship with the Child. In addition to the connection to Grandmother, the trial court also found short comings as to Mother’s parenting, and stated “Mother had revealed herself to be too immature, challenged and or dysfunctional to handle her parental duties and often been neglectful of the Child’s needs.” Mother underwent a court ordered mental health evaluation, which concluded that Mother had psychological issues including paranoia, depression, anxiety, and required ongoing treatment. The mental health evaluation concluded, however, that Mother could care for the Child and would not harm the Child.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court erred in conferring Grandmother in loco parentis standing, because Grandmother and the Child did not live together as an intact family unit. While Grandmother played a significant role by providing occasional shelter, meals, laundry and transportation to and from medical appointments, Grandmother’s actions were not consistent with a “de facto adoption of the Child.”

While Grandmother could also have standing if the Child was “substantially at risk due to parental abuse, neglect, drug or alcohol abuse, or incapacity,” the trial court failed to make such a determination. While the record contained significant shortcomings of Mother, the Superior Court did not possess the ability to make such a determination. Accordingly, the trial court’s order was vacated and the matter was remanded to the trial court, for a determination of “substantially at risk.”


© 2015 McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
FAMILY LAW UPDATE is presented with the understanding that the publisher does not render specific legal, accounting or other professional service to the reader. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the law, information contained in this publication may become outdated. Anyone using this material must always research original sources of authority and update this information to ensure accuracy and applicability to specific legal matters. In no event will the authors, the reviewers or the publisher be liable for any damage, whether direct, indirect or consequential, claimed to result from the use of this material.

RELATED PROFESSIONALS

Anthony M. Hoover

Related Practices

Family and Collaborative Law