Court Opinion

ID: 9693760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:59:10.956523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:50.099053
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
Understandably the majority has strained to reach a result which does not appear harsh, but in doing so has seriously frustrated the clearly expressed legislative scheme of adoption. Thus, I must dissent.
The children who are the subject of the present adoption proceedings, Melanie and Matthew Hess, are a sister and brother, who, at the time this litigation commenced, were five and four years of age respectively. Melanie and Mat*228thew have four siblings, but the siblings are not involved in this case. At various times during their lives, Melanie and Matthew, their siblings, and their natural parents resided with their maternal grandmother and stepgrandfather, the appellees herein. This was due to the fact that the natural parents had difficulty in securing suitable housing for themselves and their six children. During much of this time, substantial care for all of the children was provided by the grandmother.
In 1985, the natural parents informed the grandparents that they had located other housing, and, hence, removed all of their children from the grandparents’ home. The grandparents later learned, however, that all of the children had been placed with a social service agency in Lancaster County. Several of the children, but not the two involved in this case, were soon returned to the custody of their grandparents. In 1986, Melanie and Matthew were returned to their natural parents. In the spring of 1987, however, they were again removed from the custody of their natural parents and placed with the social service agency. The grandparents then contacted the agency and obtained custody. In June of 1987 the natural father removed Melanie and Matthew from the grandparents’ home and took them to Children and Family Services of Lancaster County (Family Service).* Later efforts by the grandparents to have the two children returned by Family Service were to no avail.
The natural parents then voluntarily relinquished their parental rights with respect to Melanie and Matthew. A decree terminating their parental rights was entered under 23 P.S. § 2504, and custody of the two children was awarded to Family Service. Family Service placed the children *229with proposed adoptive parents who filed a petition for adoption.
Upon learning that a petition for adoption had been filed, the grandparents filed a petition to intervene, to stay the adoption proceedings, and to obtain custody of Melanie and Matthew. They alleged that, inasmuch as they had previously taken care of the two children and were in custody of their siblings, the best interests of Melanie and Matthew would be served by awarding custody to the grandparents. Family Service filed preliminary objections alleging that the grandparents lacked standing to intervene. The preliminary objections were sustained by the Court of Common Pleas, and the petition was dismissed. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the grandparents had standing to intervene, and reasoning that consideration of the best interests of the children favored allowing intervention by the grandparents. I disagree, and would reverse.
It is certainly understandable that grandparents may be concerned about adoption proceedings involving their grandchildren. Indeed, in perhaps most families grandparents develop an interest and concern for their grandchildren that is not readily extinguished by a termination of the parents’ rights. Nevertheless, under basic principles of law governing standing and under the legislative policy clearly expressed in the adoption laws, it must be concluded that grandparents have no legally cognizable interest in the adoption of their grandchildren.
Where, as here, the rights of the natural parents have been terminated by a court decree, the effect is to terminate the interests of others whose relationship to the children is derived from the parental relationship. This is a necessary consequence of our adoption laws which effectively sever a child from its own family tree. As stated in Harvey Adoption Case, 375 Pa. 1, 3, 99 A.2d 276, 277 (1953), “a decree of adoption terminates forever all relations between the child and its natural parents, severs it entirely from its own family tree and engrafts it upon that of its new parentage: Schwab Adoption Case, 355 Pa. 534, 536, 50 A.2d 504, 505.” *230(Emphasis added). Accord Chambers Appeal, 452 Pa. 149, 154, 305 A.2d 360, 363 (1973). While it may be viewed as a harsh policy to treat a child as severed from its own family tree as a result of an adoption, the policy is a sound one. The rationale therefor was aptly described in Faust v. Messinger, 345 Pa.Super. 155, 160-61, 497 A.2d 1351, 1353 (1985), appeal dismissed, 514 Pa. 286, 523 A.2d 741 (1987):
The entire body of law pertaining to adoption harmonizes in order to place an adopted child in the shoes of a natural child in all legal respects, failing only to alter the biological makeup of the child. The intention and result of the law is to enfold an adopted child in its new family so as to be indistinguishable from his new siblings in every possible respect.
Rights of inheritance are changed; parental and filial rights and duties are altered; birth records are substituted; adoption records are impounded. In every possible respect, all family relationships are thus reestablished within the adopting family and all ties with the natural family are eradicated.
(Emphasis added).
Where, as in the present case, parental rights have been terminated but an adoption has not yet occurred, the termination of parental rights logically serves as the point in the adoption proceeding at which all ties with the child’s natural family are ended. Once those ties have been severed, there is no basis for intervention by the natural family. The grandparents in this case lack standing to maintain an action, therefore, because they have no legally enforceable interest in the outcome of the adoption proceeding. See generally South Whitehall Township Police Service v. South Whitehall Township, 521 Pa. 82, 86, 555 A.2d 793, 795 (1989) (standing requires a legal interest in the subject-matter of the litigation). See also Pa.R.C.P. 2327(4) (permitting a person not a party to an action to intervene where “the determination of such action may affect any legally enforceable interest of such person ... ”).
*231Further, permitting grandparents to intervene in an adoption proceeding, after the natural parents have consented to an adoption and their parental rights have been terminated in full compliance with the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2101 et seq., would frustrate the adoption process established by the legislature. Clearly, the legislature intended that the consent of the natural parents would be sufficient to permit an adoption to occur. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2501-2504 (voluntary relinquishment of parental rights permits an adoption to proceed).
The legislature has not made the participation of grandparents a factor in the adoption process, where the consent of parents has been given. Indeed, notice to grandparents of hearings to confirm parental consents to adoption is not even required, except where the parents are under 18 years of age. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2503(b); 23 Pa.C.S. § 2504(b). The parents of Melanie and Matthew were 25 and 34 years of age at the time they executed their consents to adoption. Significantly, too, the legislature has expressly provided that the consent of grandparents is not required when parents wish to relinquish their parental rights, even where the parents are under 18 years of age. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2501(b); 23 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b). This evinces a plain legislative intent that grandparents are not to be regarded as having a cognizable legal interest in the proceeding.
Moreover, it would be incongruous to allow grandparents to participate in adoption proceedings in cases where the natural parents are statutorily excluded from participation. In 23 Pa.C.S. § 2521(a) it is provided that a decree terminating parental rights “shall extinguish the power or the right of the parent to object to or receive notice of adoption proceedings.” The legislature surely did not intend that a child’s other biological relatives would be free to participate in proceedings from which the natural parents were excluded. Such a scheme would defy logic and would jeopardize the smooth and efficient functioning of the adoption process. It would also provide an avenue for relatives to frustrate and circumvent decrees terminating parental *232rights. Quite plainly, the legislature has established an adoption process that makes adoption dependent upon the actions of the parents alone, rather than upon the actions of other biological relatives. To permit biological relatives such as grandparents to participate in the adoption process, changes in the existing legislative policy would be required.
Allowing intervention in the name of the best interests of the children would inadequately take into account that the legislatively established adoption process was designed to fully safeguard the interests of proposed adoptees. Once parental rights have been terminated, the best interests of the child are, of course, paramount in any adoption proceeding. In re D.J.Y., 487 Pa. 125, 132 n.*, 408 A.2d 1387, 1391 n.* (1979). Nevertheless, while the best interests govern the selection of an adoptive parent, it does not follow that intervention by persons not contemplated by the legislature should be allowed. If the “best interests” rationale is invoked to permit intervention by grandparents in adoption proceedings, conceivably the door may be open also to others, related or not, and thus the time-honored legislatively ordained plan of adoption may be seriously impaired. The legislative scheme, however, is quite clear, and serves good purpose; thus, I do not find basis for grandparents to intervene.
It may be noted, too, that a decision that grandparents lack standing to intervene would be in accord with the rule followed in most other jurisdictions, in that intervention by grandparents has generally been denied where natural parents have consented to an adoption. See Christian Placement Service v. Gordon, 102 N.M. 465, 697 P.2d 148 (1985) (compilation of cases from various jurisdictions); In re Nicholas, 457 A.2d 1359 (R.I.1983); Hayes v. Watkins, 163 Ga.App. 589, 295 S.E.2d 556 (1982); Krieg v. Glassburn, 419 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind.App.1981); Muggenborg v. Kessler, 630 P.2d 1276 (Okla.1981); Petition of Benavidez, 52 Ill. App.3d 626, 10 Ill.Dec. 362, 367 N.E.2d 971 (1977).
In short, the Adoption Act does not contemplate intervention by grandparents in proceedings of the present sort. *233The decision of the Superior Court, holding to the contrary, should be reversed.
ZAPPALA and CAPPY, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.

 Inasmuch as the children had been in residence with the grandparents for a period of only a few months when they were removed by the father, this case does not present a situation where the statutory provision allowing grandparents certain rights of visitation or partial custody, 23 Pa.C.S. § 5313, could have been invoked. This provision states that it is applicable where a “child has resided with his grandparents ... for a period of 12 months or more and is subsequently removed from the home by his parents____’’