Case Title: T.B. v. L.R.M., Aplt (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-86-2001] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT T.B., Appellee v. L.R.M., Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 62 WAP 2000 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 5, 2000, at No. 1996PGH1997, vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, entered August 26, 1997, at No. 1996-3626. 753 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) ARGUED: September 10, 2001 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: DECEMBER 28, 2001 I join the majority opinion. I note that I fully agree with the majority that this court has never considered “[t]he ability to marry the biological parent and the ability to adopt the subject child [to be] . . . factors in determining whether the third party assumed a parental status and discharged parental duties.” Majority slip op. at 8. In fact, we have recently issued a decision that stands for quite the opposite proposition. In Charles v. Stehlik, 744 A.2d 1255 (Pa. 2000), we addressed a matter in which the trial court granted custody to the stepfather following the biological mother’s death. The biological father challenged this order. We affirmed the award of custody in favor of the stepfather, even though the stepfather was precluded from adopting the child since the biological father’s parental rights [J-86-2001] - 2 had not been terminated and notwithstanding the fact that there had been no finding that the biological father was unfit. Thus, it is my opinion that a finding that a person may stand in loco parentis to a child regardless of that person’s ability to marry the biological parent or to adopt the child is consonant with established precedent from this court.