Court Opinion

ID: 9950235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 16:12:48.445921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:14.743530
License: Public Domain

J-A18014-23

                             2024 PA Super 45

 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A            :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                  :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: A.E. AND A.E.               :
                                        :
                   Appellants           :
                                        :
                                        :    No. 22 WDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 8, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-02-DP-0000729-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

CONCURRING OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:           FILED: March 13, 2024

     I join in the majority’s disposition of the instant appeal. It is beyond

cavil that Appellants should be permitted to intervene in the instant

dependency proceedings after their foster child was removed from their care

despite two years of placement.   I write separately, however, to express my

strongest concurrence with the majority. We ask foster parents, who may

ultimately become adoptive resources for dependent children, to invest in the

relationship with those children and become akin to parents for them—loving

them unconditionally, caring for them, and dealing with their physical and

mental ailments. However, we deny these same individuals “standing” to be

heard at a proceeding that challenges CYS’ removal of the child from their
J-A18014-23

home.      This is so even if they have become “pre-adoptive parents” in all

aspects but the formality thereof.1

       Under the Juvenile Act, a foster parent is entitled to notice of a hearing

regarding the child’s adjustment, progress and condition, “i.e. permanency

review issues,” but the foster parent does not have full standing to participate

as a party in the proceeding nor is a foster parent entitled to the statutory

rights inherent to a party under the Act. Compare 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336.1(a)

(generally, foster parent not deemed party to and lacks standing to fully

participate in dependency proceedings) with 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6337, 6338 (foster

parent is entitled to notice of a hearing and the right to be heard regarding

the child’s “adjustment, progress[,] and condition,” i.e. permanency review

issues).

       What is standing, but a short-hand method of declaring that the party

has a real interest in the proceeding? To say that a foster parent does not

have an interest in either the well-being of the child or of their own reputation

as it relates to the act of being a foster/pre-adoptive parent flies in the face

of what is happening on the ground in the vast majority of placements,

particularly when a parent is no longer available.        Creating an artificial

distinction between foster parents and prospective adoptive parents with

regard to their expectation of permanency with a child is not only unrealistic,

but flies in the face of the intent behind the Juvenile Act (the Act) and our
____________________________________________

1 Like the majority, I express no opinion on whether it is in the best interest

of the Child to return to Appellants’ care.

                                           -2-
J-A18014-23

foster care system. The 1998 amendments to the Act were made specifically

to “conform to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997.”

See generally 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 671-675. ASFA provides plans to the states

for foster care and adoption assistance “in response to the concerns of foster

care drift and unsafe and unstable reunification efforts.” In re S.H., 71 A.3d

973, 978 (Pa. Super.2013). The ASFA operates under the goal of achieving

safe permanency for those children who come into foster care. See Ex. Or.

No. 13930 of June 24, 2020, 85 Fed. Reg. 38741, Section 1 (Purpose).

      We find ourselves constrained by the wording of the Act itself. We urge

the legislature to revisit the Commonwealth’s current stance on foster parent

standing and the ability to intervene in dependency proceedings under the

circumstances of a child being removed from their care.      By giving foster

parents therein a voice, we acknowledge their importance in the state’s

system to ensure the permanence and best interests of children throughout

this Commonwealth. Making an artificial distinction between a foster parent

who has provided for a child practically since her birth to a person who has

achieved formal pre-adoptive parent status is simply untenable and

indefensible.   For these salient reasons, I concur.

                                      -3-