D.S. and L.S. v. J.S. and R.L.S. ( 2014 )

J-A23022-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
D.S. AND L.S., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
J.S. AND R.L.S.,
Appellees No. 301 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 7, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County,
Civil Division, at No(s): 09-90120-C2
BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 30, 2014
D.S. and L.S. (“Grandparents”) appeal from the order which, inter alia,
dismissed their Petition for Reinstatement of Custody Action and for
Modification. In their petition, Grandparents requested that they be
awarded custodial time with their minor grandson, S.S., born in June of
2006 (“Child”). We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history
as follows.
[J.S.] (hereinafter “Father”) and [R.S.] (hereinafter
“Adoptive Mother”) are the parents of the minor child in the
herein custody matter, [Child]. Father and Adoptive Mother are
married and live as an intact family with [Child]. [Grandparents]
are the paternal grandparents of the child. [J.S.] (hereinafter
“Natural Mother”) is the child’s biological mother.
The initial Complaint for Custody in this matter was filed
by Father against Natural Mother in 2009. Following a Custody
J-A23022-14
Conciliation it was Ordered that primary physical custody of the
child would remain with Father. It was further Ordered that
Natural Mother would be entitled to have contact with the child
as the parties agree.
On September 16, 2011, Grandparents filed a Custody
Complaint against Father. At that time Grandparents asserted
standing to file the custody action pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 5324(2), claiming that they stood in loco parentis for the child,
and pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5325(2), as the biological
parents of the child are separated. Following a Custody
Conciliation, an Order of Court was entered on November 1,
2011, which provided that Father would have primary physical
custody subject to Grandparents’ partial custody. Although
Natural Mother’s whereabouts were unknown, she was joined to
the action.
On December 8, 2011, Natural Mother filed a Counter-
Claim for Custody. After a further Conciliation it was Ordered
that the status quo would be maintained with Father having
primary custody of the child and Grandparents having partial
custody. It was further Ordered that Natural Mother and the
child would undergo therapeutic reunification counseling.
At the time and place for a further Custody Conciliation in
August of 2012, Grandparents did not appear and were not
represented by counsel. Therefore, Grandparent[s’] claim for
custody was dismissed by Order of Court entered on August 28,
2012. They did not object to the dismissal. It was further
Ordered that Father would retain primary physical custody of the
child, with Natural Mother having therapeutic supervised partial
custody.
On March 13, 2013, Natural Mother agreed to a voluntary
termination of parental rights and executed a Consent to
Adoption. Accordingly, a Consent Order was entered closing the
custody matter between Father and Natural Mother. Following a
hearing on June 7, 2013, a Final Decree in Adoption was
entered, recognizing the child’s stepmother, [Adoptive Mother]
as the legal mother of [Child]. From that day forward [Child]
continued to reside with Father and Adoptive Mother as an intact
family.
Order of Court, 2/7/14, at 1-3.
-2 -
J-A23022-14
On December 26, 2013, Grandparents filed their Petition for
Reinstatement of Custody Action and for Modification. In the petition,
Grandparents explained that they “willing[ly] did not appear and did not
request that their counsel appear on their behalf” at the custody conciliation
of August 9, 2012. Petition for Reinstatement of Custody Action and for
Modification, 12/26/13, at 6. Grandparents averred that “they and Father
had been working well together and Father had been willing[ly] cooperating
to ensure that they had the custody time under the January 25, 2012 Order
of Court.” Id. According to Grandparents, “Father indicated that he would
continue to do so and that the involvement of the Court was no longer
necessary. It was on that basis that Paternal Grandparents did not appear
at the August custody conciliation.” Id.
Grandparents claimed, however, that “Father has gradually and
continually restricted the Paternal Grandparent[s’] time with emotional
detriment to the child.” Id. Specifically, Grandparents averred that the last
time they saw Child “was approximately [the] end of October
2013/beginning of November 2013,” and that Father “has reduced them [to]
seeing their grandson [] every three (3) week[s] for approximately three (3)
hours.” Id. at 6-7. Grandparents requested that “their custody action be
reinstated and that they be provided with substantial o[r] partial custody
time at least equal to the prior Orders of Court dated November 1, 2011 and
January 25, 2012.” Id. at 7.
-3 -
J-A23022-14
On January 23, 2014, Father filed preliminary objections and an
emergency motion to dismiss to Grandparents’ petition. In his preliminary
objections, Father contended, inter alia, that Grandparents lacked standing
to pursue custody of Child. That same day, Grandparents responded by
filing an answer, new matter, and request for sanctions. Argument on
Father’s preliminary objections occurred on January 30, 2014.
On February 7, 2014, the trial court entered an order which dismissed
Grandparents’ petition. Grandparents timely filed a notice of appeal, as well
as a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
Grandparents raise the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in ruling the adoption of
[Grandparents’] grandson by his stepmother had terminated
their standing to seek custody with respect to him?
B. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in finding that
[Grandparents’] standing to seek custody was terminated
because their prior custody action had been dismissed after their
standing was recognized and custody time was granted to them?
C. Whether the lower court erred in its[] interpretation and
application of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5326, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2102, Rigler
v. Treen, 660 A.2d 111 (Pa.[]Super. 1995) and Suroviec v.
Mitchell, 500 A.2d 894 (Pa.[]Super. 1985)?
Grandparents’ Brief at 8.
Grandparents’ issues involve questions of law. As a result, our
standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. P.T. v.
M.H., 953 A.2d 814, 817 (Pa. Super. 2008).
-4 -
J-A23022-14
Instantly, the trial court dismissed Grandparents’ petition on the basis
that they had “not properly filed a custody complaint” pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1915.3(a), which states that, “[e]xcept as provided by subdivision (c), an
action shall be commenced by filing a verified complaint substantially in the
form provided by Rule 1915.15(a).” Order of Court, 2/7/14, at 3-4. The
court reasoned that Grandparents had failed to plead facts sufficient to
establish standing, and that the fact that Grandparents may have had
standing in the past did not exempt them from having to demonstrate
standing now. Id.; Trial Court Opinion, 3/19/14, at 2-4. The court
proceeded to consider whether Grandparents had standing, “for the purpose
of judicial economy,” and concluded that they did not. Order of Court,
2/7/14, at 4.
In response, Grandparents raise several arguments concerning their
standing to bring a custody action. Grandparents direct our attention to the
language of 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5325(2), and 5326, as well as several decisions
by this Court, including Rigler v. Treen, 660 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 1995),
and Suroviec v. Mitchell, 500 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 1985), which they
assert demonstrate their current standing to seek custody of Child.
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Grandparents
are not entitled to relief. Even if Grandparents are correct that they have
standing to seek custody of Child, and even if they pled sufficient facts to
establish standing, they did not properly commence a custody action. Here,
Grandparents filed a petition to “reinstate” their prior custody case. Our
-5 -
J-A23022-14
Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a petitioner to simply “reinstate” a
dismissed custody action at their convenience. Rather, a party seeking
custodial rights to a child must file a complaint in substantial compliance
with our Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pa.R.C.P. 1915.3(a), supra.
Further, even if we were to treat Grandparents’ petition as the
functional equivalent of a custody complaint, we would still conclude that
this pleading did not comply substantially with the requirements of Rule
1915.15(a) and, as a result, was inadequate to commence a custody action.
Most critically, Grandparents did not include with their petition a “Criminal
Record/Abuse History Verification.” See Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15(a); Pa.R.C.P.
1915.3-2 (“The petitioner must file and serve with the complaint, or any
petition for modification, a verification regarding any criminal or abuse
history of the petitioner and anyone living in the petitioner's household.”)
(emphasis added).1
We thus affirm the order dismissing Grandparents’ petition. In light of
our conclusion that Grandparents failed to properly commence a custody
action, we need not address their arguments concerning standing, and we
express no opinion as to whether Grandparents have standing. We simply
acknowledge that Grandparents were required to file a proper custody
complaint, and that they have failed to do so.
1
While our reasoning does not match that of the trial court, “[i]f we
determine that the trial court ruling is correct, we can affirm on any basis
supported by the record.” R.M. v. J.S., 20 A.3d 496, 506 n.8 (Pa. Super.
2011) (citation omitted).
-6 -
J-A23022-14
Order affirmed.
Judge Donohue joins the memorandum.
Judge Musmanno concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/30/2014
-7 -