Case Title: Peters v. Costello (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2006-01-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-147-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, JJ. TEDDY PETERS, Appellant v. DANIEL COSTELLO AND MARYANN COSTELLO, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 8 EAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered August 11, 2003, at 3850 EDA 2002, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County entered November 15, 2002, at D.R. No. 0C9900866. SUBMITTED: July 27, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: December 30, 2005 I join the majority opinion, but write to ensure that such joinder is not misconstrued in the future. Initially, I believe this ruling is fact specific and will not be of general application. With the exception of eight months around her thirteenth year, Francesca has lived her entire life with the Costellos. Francesca’s mother is dead, and at the conclusion of the eight-month period during which Francesca lived with her father, her father signed a formal agreement entrusting the Costellos with responsibility for Francesca’s health, education, welfare, and physical and emotional needs. The only thing missing in the agreement between Francesca’s father and the Costellos that would have mooted this suit is formalized adoption. Moreover, Francesca’s child Felicity, who is at the center of this [J-147-2004] - 2 dispute, lived her entire life with the Costellos until Appellant obtained primary custody of Felicity through a court action. This is simply not a case of the devoted nanny or next door neighbor from a parent’s childhood seeking custody of the parent’s child, but rather this holding applies only to those individuals who stand in loco parentis to the parent and have lived with the child for twelve months or more. Accordingly, while I join the majority opinion, I emphasize the compelling nature of the facts of this case which would have to be present in any case before this would be applicable as precedent. Finally, the majority notes at footnote 3 the potential interaction of this opinion with our Court’s decision in R.M. v. Baxter ex. rel. T.M., 777 A.2d 446 (Pa. 2001), which provides grandparents with automatic standing to petition pursuant to Section 5313(b) for full custody without limitation. For similar reasons to those stated above in relation to Section 5313(a), I am convinced that few will be able to satisfy the requirements for custody under Section 5313(b). Moreover, I must note that I believe that Baxter was wrongly decided and notwithstanding my deep respect for stare decisis, will urge its reversal when the opportunity arises.