J-S34002-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

T.E.N. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY CHILDREN AND 

YOUTH SERVICES

No. 1880 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered October 13, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,

Civil Division, at No(s): 2015-2460

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 19, 2016

T.E.N. (“Paternal Grandmother”) appeals, pro se, from the order 

entered October 13, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland 

County, dismissing her custody complaint with regard to L.N. (“Child”), born 

in February 2013. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history, 

in part, as follows:

Subsequent to the [c]ourt’s April 16, 2015 Order denying 

[Paternal] Grandmother’s Motion to Modify Placement,[1]

[Paternal] Grandmother filed a Custody Complaint on April 30, 

2015. . . seeking full legal and physical custody of L.N.[2]In 

response, the [c]ourt [o]rdered a custody conciliation to take 

 

1 This trial court entered this order in the separate but related dependency 

proceedings at Docket Number CP-21-DP-0000105-2013.

2

Paternal Grandmother sought sole legal and sole physical custody of Child 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324. SeeComplaint for Custody, 4/30/15.
J-S34002-16

-2 -

place on June 9, 2015. However, [Paternal] Grandmother’s 

Custody Complaint failed to join [Foster Parents] to the custody 

action. This [c]ourt found them to be necessary parties to the 

conciliation under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.6, 

so the custody conciliation was continued,[3]and eventually 

rescheduled for July 14, 2015. At the July 14, 2015 conciliation, 

all parties appeared and were unable to reach an agreement to 

settle the custody action. Nevertheless, the Custody Conciliator 

recommended, and this [c]ourt so ordered, that [Paternal] 

Grandmother be awarded visitation with the Child every third 

week in a visitation center. A full custody hearing was scheduled 

for November 20, 2015.

On June 26, 2015, this [c]ourt entered an Order in the 

dependency docket noting that the dependency proceedings and 

the custody proceedings run collaterally to one another, and that 

the commencement of the custody proceedings would not 

prevent the dependency proceedings from moving forward 

toward adoption. Before the November 20, 2015 custody 

hearing could occur, L.N.’s adoption by [Foster Parents] was 

finalized on October 2, 2015. . . . 

 

3 This order was initially entered on the related dependency docket, instead 

of the custody docket, in error. By order dated December 22, 2015, and 

entered December 23, 2015, the trial court corrected the docketing error. 

Order, 12/23/15.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/23/15, at 8-9 (footnotes omitted).

Given the Child’s adoption of Child by Foster Parents, on October 9, 

2015, Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (the “Agency”) filed a 

petition to be dismissed as a defendant and/or dismiss Paternal 

Grandmother’s custody complaint. In addition, on that same date, Foster 

Parents also filed a motion to dismiss Paternal Grandmother’s custody 

complaint. By order entered October 13, 2015, because of the adoption, and 

in consideration of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5326, the trial court granted Foster Parents’ 

motion and dismissed Paternal Grandmother’s custody complaint. The court 
J-S34002-16

-3 -

also cancelled the scheduled pre-trial conference and custody trial. By 

further order entered October 15, 2015, the trial court deemed the Agency’s 

petition moot. 

On October 26, 2015, Paternal Grandmother filed, pro se, a notice of 

appeal.4 Although Paternal Grandmother did not file a separate statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b), 

her notice of appeal contains alleged errors.5Paternal Grandmother 

essentially challenges the dismissal of her complaint for custody and avers 

violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1915.4.

As the disposition of this appeal involves a pure question of law, our 

standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See In re 

Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 214 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc); Harrell v. 

Pecynski, 11 A.3d 1000, 1003 (Pa. Super. 2011).

The trial court reasoned that Paternal Grandmother’s complaint for custody 

was appropriately dismissed pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5326, due to Child’s 

 

4

Paternal Grandmother also filed a separate appeal with regard to the 

related dependency matter at Superior Court Docket Number 1872 MDA 

2015, and which is addressed in a separate memorandum.

5 We note that Paternal Grandmother’s brief does not include a statement of 

questions involved, for which we could find waiver. See Krebs v. United 

Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 

2006). However, Appellees do not raise this concern or request such relief. 

We, therefore, review the issues raised by Paternal Grandmother.

 
J-S34002-16

-4 -

adoption by Foster Parents. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/23/15, at 12. The 

court stated:

In the case at bar, L.N. was adopted by [Foster Parents] 

on October 2, 2015. [Foster Parents] are not L.N.’s step-parents, 

grandparents or great-grandparents. They are a new mother and 

new father to the Child. Thus, [Paternal] Grandmother’s right to 

seek custody of L.N. under Section 5324 was extinguished as of 

the date of the adoption, October 2, 2015, pursuant to the 

express terms of 23 Pa.C.S. § 5326. As a result, this [c]ourt 

properly dismissed [Paternal] Grandmother’s Custody Complaint 

in an Order dated October 12, 2015.

Id. We agree.

Section 5326 provides:

Any rights to seek physical custody or legal custody rights and 

any custody rights that have been granted under section 5324 

(relating to standing for any form of physical custody or legal 

custody) or 5325 (relating to standing for partial physical 

custody and supervised physical custody) to a grandparent or 

great-grandparent prior to the adoption of the child by an 

individual other than a stepparent, grandparent or greatgrandparent shall be automatically terminated upon such 

adoption.

(emphasis added).

Here, Paternal Grandmother sought custody of Child under 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 5324. However, Foster Parents thereafter adopted Child. Under the plain 

and unambiguous language of § 5326, upon Child’s adoption on October 2, 

2015, any custodial rights conferred on Paternal Grandmother, as well as her 

standing to seek same, ceased and automatically terminated. See 15 

Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Family Law § 9:42 (2d ed.). Consequently, the trial court 

appropriately dismissed Paternal Grandmother’s custody complaint.
J-S34002-16

-5 -

Further, the trial court suggested that it did not violate Pennsylvania 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.4(a) in handling this custody matter. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 12/23/15, at 10-11. On this topic, the court indicated as 

follows:

The parental rights of L.N.’s parents were terminated on 

September 24, 2014. [Foster Parents] filed a report of intention 

to adopt on September 24, 2014. [Paternal] Grandmother filed 

her custody Complaint against [the Agency] on April 30, 2015. 

The custody conciliation was initially scheduled for June 9, 2015. 

Therefore, on its face, Rule 1915.4(a) was not violated because 

the original custody conciliation was scheduled to occur within 45 

days of the filing of the custody complaint.

The [c]ourt then continued the conciliation because we 

found that [Foster Parents] were a necessary party under 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.4(a).[6] This [c]ourt 

notes that minds may differ as to the interpretation of case law 

regarding the rights of pre-adoptive parents in custody actions, 

particularly where, as here, court-ordered physical custody 

remained with [the Agency]. Nevertheless, this [c]ourt would 

still have ordered the continuation of the conciliation to provide 

notice of the pendency of the action to [Foster Parents] pursuant 

to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1925.6(b). . . .

Because [Foster Parents] stood to lose actual physical 

custody of the child in the custody action, this [c]ourt ordered 

the continuation of the conciliation so that [Foster Parents] could 

take part in it. By doing so, this [c]ourt hoped that [Foster 

Parents] and [Paternal] Grandmother would use the conciliation 

to reach an agreement as to ongoing visitation with the child 

even if [Foster Parents] were to be granted the right to adopt 

L.N. Indeed, [Foster Parents] have worked with [Paternal] 

Grandmother throughout the course of this case, and have 

evidenced intent to continue to allow [Paternal] Grandmother to 

be in L.N.’s life into the future. The [c]ourt therefore ordered 

[Foster Parents] to be joined in the custody action. [Paternal] 

 

6 We believe the trial court meant Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 

1925.6(a).
J-S34002-16

-6 -

Grandmother’s claim that Rule 1915.4(a) was violated in the 

custody matter is without merit.

Id. (citations omitted). Again, we agree.

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.4 states:

(a) Initial Contact With the Court. Depending upon the 

procedure in the judicial district, the parties’ initial in-person 

contact with the court (including, but not limited to a conference 

with a conference officer pursuant to Rule 1915.4-2, a 

conference with a judge, conciliation, mediation and/or 

class/seminar) shall be scheduled to occur not later than 45 days 

from the filing of a complaint or petition.

In addition, as to joinder, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1915.6 

provides:

(a)(1) If the court learns from the pleadings or any other source 

that a parent whose parental rights have not been previously 

terminated or a person who has physical custody of the child is 

not a party to the action, it shall order that the person be joined 

as a party. Such person shall be served with a copy of all prior 

pleadings and notice of the joinder substantially in the form 

prescribed by Rule 1915.16(a).

(2) The person joined must file any objection to the order of 

joinder within twenty days after notice of the order.

(3) The person joined may file a counterclaim asserting a right to 

physical or legal custody in the form required for a complaint by 

Rule 1915.3. A copy of the counterclaim shall be served upon all 

other parties to the action as provided by Rule 440.

(b) If the court learns from the pleadings or any other source 

that any other person who claims to have custodial rights with 

respect to the child is not a party to the action, it shall order that 

notice be given to that person of the pendency of the action and 

of the right to intervene therein. The notice shall be substantially 

in the form prescribed by Rule 1915.16(b).

Here, while the trial court cancelled the initial custody conciliation, it 

had in fact been scheduled to occur within forty-five days of Paternal 
J-S34002-16

-7 -

Grandmother’s filing. Moreover, this conciliation was only rescheduled due to 

the failure to include Foster Parents as a party in the custody action and/or 

notify Foster Parents. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the trial 

court dismissing Paternal Grandmother’s custody complaint.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/19/2016
J-S34002-16

-8 -