HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-05349
, \
1"'1
\ '
1
~'
"
(
~
1
~
"
u
, ,
7
.
"
I
'I
~
J
r~
,~
j
1
~~
J
,j
0'
~
~
I
I
, ,
111
It
I
i
, I
, '
.........
~ '
'I
,
.
.~
, \
I
~
,
I
~~, ,
'.,
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
custody for the father, WIlliam Davis, as we understand that Is a matter
that the mother and father of the child have or will resolve privately.
Erik's mother and father never married. The mother married Tory Messner on
July 15, 1995, On March 31, 1997, Tory Messner adopted Erik upon the consent of
the father, William Davis. Thereafter, the mother refused to honor the periods of
visitation that the paternal grandmother and her husband have consistently exercised
with Erik since the entry of the order of November 15, 1994. The paternal
grandmother and her husband filed this motion to hold the mother In contempt. A
hearing was condLlcted on May 22, 1997,
Citing Fault v. Me..lnger, 345 Pa, Super, 155 (1985), the mother maintains
that the paternal grandmother's visitation rights were extinguished on March 31, 1997,
the day Erik was adopted by Tory Messner, In Fault, the Superior Court affirmed an
order of the trial court denying a maternal grandmother visitation with her grandson
following his adoption, The child's father killed the child's mother for which he was in
prison. A couple then adopted the child In a proceeding In which the father
relinquished his parental rights. The child's maternal grandmother flied a complaint
for custody and a petition to Intervene in the adoption nunc pro tunc. The trial court
dismissed both of her claims, On appeal the grandmother maintained that she had
been denied procedural due process by the adoption proceeding and that she should
be granted visitation with her grandson, The Superior Court rejected her due process
claim because (1) she failed to notify the attorney general of her constitutional attack
on the adoption statute, and (2) under the Custody and Grandparent Visitation Act
-2.
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
she was entitled only to an opportunity to seek visitation which could be granted or
denied as the best Interest of the child dictate, The Court concluded that her request
for visitation was properly denied because her "[s]tatutory entitlement to seek
visitation with her grandson ended when the adoption decree was granted."
In Surovlec v. Mitchell, 347 Pa, Super, 399 (1985), a father appealed from an
order granting maternal grandparents' visitation with their grandchildren, The mother
was deceased, In the three years before her death, the parents and their children
resided with the maternal grandparents, After the mother's death, the father and the
children moved from the maternal grandparents' home, The father subsequently
remarried and his wife adopted the children, The trial court entered an order
awarding the maternal grandparents' visitation with the children, Distinguishing the
facts In Flult, supra, the Superior Court affirmed, The court concluded that the
holding In Faust that the statutory entitlement to seek visitation with the grandson
ended when the adoption decree was granted:
was based on the fact that when a child Is adopted by a couple who
were prev" ;us'y unrelated to the child, the family relationships are
severed' ,,'11 the natural family and established with the adopting family.
The Court stated:
The Flust case has no bearing on the present situation which
Involves a stepparent adoption, The Flust statement that 'an adoption
decree terminates the visitation rights of a grandparent regardless of
their basis, ' , , Is limited to its facts. It applies only If a child is adopted
by both a new mother and a new father who were previously unrelated
to the child. It does not apply, as in this case, when a child is adopted
by a stepparent. , . ,
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered upon the order
-3-
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
granting the Surovlecs' Petition for VIsitation Privileges,
The paternal grandmother, Leslie Space, was granted visitation with Erik pursuant to
23 Pa,C.S, Section 5312, that provides:
In all proceedings for dissolution, subsequent to the
commencement of the proceeding and continuing thereafter or when
parente have been eeparatld for elx monthe or more, the court may,
upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant
reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried
child if it finds that visitation rights or partial custody, or both, would be
in the best Interest of the child and would not Interfere with the parent.
child relationship. The court shall consider the amount of personal
contact between the parents or grandparents of the party and the child
prior to the application, (Emphasis added,)
Section 5314 provides:
Section 5311 (relating to when parent deceased), 5312 (relating
to when parente' marriage Is dissolved or parents are ..parated) and
5313 (relating to when child has reslaed with grandparents) ehall not
apply If the child hae been adopted by a pereon other than a
stepparent or grandparent. Any visitation rights granted pursuant to
this section prior to the adoption of the child shall be automatically
terminated upon such adoption, (Emphasis added,)
In the case sub ludlce, the mother, Laura Messner, argues In her brief that
"[T]he reference to step-parent [in Section 5314] would apply for the paternal
grandmother only if her son had remarried and the child was being adopted by the
son's wife." Not only does the statute fail to make the distinction suggested by the
mother but also to the contrary, the holding in Surovlec, eupra, Is on point with the
present case. As were the facts in Surovllc, the facts in the present case are
distinguishable from those In Fluet, eupra. The spousal adoption of Erik by Tory
Messner does not terminate the visitation rights of the paternal grandmother, Leslie
.4.
4. Issues yet to be resolved; Petitioner/Defendant's request for termination
of grandparents' visitation.
6. The Plaintiffs' position on custody is as follows: Plalntiffs/Resp')ndents
are the paternal grandparents of the child. The grandparents are requesting that
the existing Order be continued and that they be provided with one overnight per
quarter.
6. The Defendant's position on custody Is as follows: Defendant/Petitioner
has requested that all visitation with the paternal grandmother be terminated.
Mother suggests that grandmother has used the visitation rights as a mechanism by
which her son, the natural father of the child, can visit with the child. The natural
father gave up his rights to the child via an adoption with a final decree dated
March 31, 1997. Mother contends that the natural father has seen the child with
the grandparents during their visitation.
In addition, Mother indicates that the child does not want to see the paternal
grandmother and that it is net in his best interest to continue the visitation.
7, Need for separate counsel to represent child(ren): Neither party
requested.
8. Need for independent psychological evaluation or counseling: None
requested and the Conciliator does not believe any is necessary.
9. A hearing in this matter will take three hours.
10. Other matters or comments: The Court has been extensively involved in
this case. In its Order and opinion thereto date May 28, 1997, the Court
determined that the grandmother had a legal right to continue the grandparent
visitation despite the fact that an adoption occurred by the former step-father.
The Mother now is trying to terminate the visitation rights based upon her
assertion that it is not in the best interest of the child and that the visitation is
being used merely as a subterfuge to allow the natural father to continue to have
visitation rights despite the adoption, Apparently, the father did have contact with
the child at an extended family gathering that occurred this summer. The
grandmother, however, stated at the conciliation that she would ensure that the
natural father had no contact at all with the child when the child is with her and
that it was not her intent to continue to foster the visitation with the natural father
through this Order.
The Conciliator suggested that stronger language be put in specifically
requiring that the grandmother not put the child in contact with the natural father.
Because of the animosity and distrust between the parties, the natural mother
would not agree to this provision. In addition, the natural mother feels quite
strongly that the child's visitation wit~, the grandmother should cease altogether.
The Conciliator advised the Mother that she would have the burden of proving to
the Court that the visitation with the grandmother was detrimental to the child in
,
"
~:J.'_ ., ,I", I,
'.' '''~'i':?;',,'' ,
.t,
.'!.
''.
,
'1<
I
1'1'
atiL -f;\'IZ (L ~L)
C~OH Vd 'Gi'l!IW:) . WIUlMV ^\Jou!l '3 \'I . 1101 ^IlGqll
UO!IUJO\JJ<l~) IUlJOI'iSOIOJd V
UMOJS pUB JaAe)l
,;'
"
"
,
1'1
I,
, "
"
, ,
I'
I :'
,
d,
,
,
"
,
,,'
,I:
I,
,<'
~I , i,','
':i\'I- , .. ' ...
.",'<, '!
',.' : "
; ',,' : 'I, ...'
AI
... , t:
: c.
.... AoM'
AI iI
if '"
"
(I) ....
i,! n I,'
"
" s
, Ii
:' ~
,',
'iI' .i
/'1.
i,..
',i
\
, ,
'"
I'
11('
Ii
,,'
'.'
,i"
.
,
.
,
,
\. I
','r
,I
1"
.'I,'J,
'"
~i"
",',1
:"r'
;O'lr"
l\_'.
.,"
",
,1:1
,,'f, .:. I':
"
".:,
ii.
'1'",,;
.
, .. ,"~ ", c,
,,'
"
~
I,
,. \' ';, \ I t~~:, J.,
1 .~( I'"",
"
,ii'
"
I,J:
',I'i
',;','~::'.:~)rl!
; ~:'-'!'- '.'i_'ii':_!,\:f;:~
,(,}: ,;:' ~,;,:;,~",~t~;,'.,~
, , ' 'I' "! 1"1"
, " ' ".:'1,-;")';-'\,' '''~J'fH'
fT:- 'C{,',..r,1 lIr-'~',;i;i--
<' I, ' -.;'., :i::'kJ!_~\,.t;l~ ;~-il'
"l"~' i 'l,7,r::J,-
. _,"t.;,,,,-~-~,~
, .'.!?_I,~ ,1_ . '
::"',r,'i,W/i
""'-~~\itl'
:<""':'j,"'!"'{~ '
,>,.,;,_1':";'11
4"\\:1 '.1
!\,'" ,,;,,':';:,th,J\,f;';'1
',\ ,,',!l.;II'1il:"~
}f"i"t~~J~
1,,,dl,1~;
'.,}'ii
[,Hili
-i' "/"~I' j
,
"
"
,
,"
;!,
Sunday School and has. in fact. commellced attendance of Sunday School. It is further admitted that
Defendant infonned Plaintiff of the child's attendance of Sunday School and offered to modify the times
set forth in the court's November 15, 19<)4 order so as to allow the Plaintiff an equal amoulll of time
with the child,
6, Denied. It is denied that Defendant has violated the November 15, 1994 order, Plaintift's
allegations that the Defendant is somehow in contempt of the order by her relocating is specious,
PlailllitTs contention that Defendmll "found an activity" for the child and has done so to cnrtail or
shorten the time the Plaintiff has with the child is specious as well due to the fact that she offered the
Plaintiff additional time at the end of the visit to make up for the late start, It was the Plaintiff's refusal
to accept this compromise that has resulted in the Plailllifl's loss of time with the child,
7, The Defendant is unable to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the Plaintifl's averment
that her schedule will not allow her to spend more time with the child,
8. Denied, It is denied that the Defendant ever stated to the child that he will not have to go
ami see his grandmother. It is also denied that the Defendant has "attempted to thwart the court order
of November 15, 1994, every chance she has been able to do so", Defendant suspended visitation in
the month of April due to her reliance upon the Grandparent Visitation Statute which indicates the
grandparent's visitation rights are automatically tenninated assuming that certain conditions are satisfied,
That issue has since been previously litigated before this Honorable Court,
WHEREFORE, Defendant pray that this Honorable Court dismisses the Plaintifl's Petition for
Contempt. Furthermore, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to schedule a hearing addressing
whether the best interests of the child will be served by continued visitation with the patt~rnal
grandmother. At that time, paternal grandmother may pursue her requested additional time with the
child, and the mother shall be able to pnrsue any further restrictions upon such visil<ltion, including the
,I
,\WJllL. 1 5 1997
\...--" . .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY
-----
LESLEY SPACE
Plaintiff
814 Erford Road
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
V.
LAURA HART MESSINER
Defendant
R.D. 1$1 Box 179
Ellioteburl,Pa 17024
No. 94-5349
Civil aotion-ouetody
Contempt
PLAINTIFF'S PE'CITION 1'0 HAVE DIi:FENDANT FOUND IN CONTEMPT
NOW COMES The Plaintiff, Lcslny Space, by and through her
attorney, Daniel Pollock, Esq, to file with this Honorable Court
a Contempt PetitIon against Ms. Laura Hart Meesiner for failure
to follow the Partial Custody Order of this Court dated November
15, 1994 and the threat to continue not to follow the terms of
this order,
CONTEMPT
1. Tho terma of the Par t lEd Custody Order of November 15, 1994
states that ~;r ik Hart, i f\ supposed to be pi cked up by hi a
Irandmother, Lesley Space, at 10:00 A.M. on the second sunday of
every month and returned to his mother's home by 7:00 P.M. unless
other arrangements are made and mutually agreed upon by the
parties,
2. Since the Summer of
increasingly more difficult
Grandchild as per the court
1995, Ms. Mcssiner haa made it
for Mrs. Space to spend time with her
order,
3. During the Summer of 1995 Ms, Measiner moved from Mount
Holly Springs. Cumberland County, Pa. to H,[). 111 Elliotsburg,
Perry County, Pa, (noar [ckesburg, fa.) more than doubling the
traveling distance that Mrs, Space must travol in order to aee
her grandson, Erik Hart,
4. During t.he Month of April, 1997, Me, Mcssiner had her now
husband adopt Erik and at.tempted to halt all visitation between
Mrs, Space and Erik Hart, (Ms, Meseinur was found In contempt of
this Court Order for this act.ion) ,
5. Upon t.his Court"l OI'der that tho Order .of Novnmbor 15, 1994
be followed by Me, Muusinor, Sho informs Mrfl, Spaco that She will
Have to walt until 1l:30 A,M. \'0 pick up H:rlk, because he is now
enrollnd in Sunday School,
6. MD. MeBsiner'a ditiregard for the order of November 15, 1994
done by moving miles away and finding an activity for Erik on
Sunday's has effoctivly ehortened the time Mrs. Space has to
visit with her Grandson by 2 1/2 hours due to travel and "Sunday
School. ..
7. Mrs. Space'o work ochedule will not allow hor to accomadate
Ms, Messiner'o "now desire" that Erik attend "SlIndllY SCh"OI" ,
6, Ms. MesDinor hEHI fltat",1 to Erik that "soon he will not. have
to go and see hiB lJrandm<)ther", and has recently attempted
to thwart the Court Order of November 15, 1994 evory chance she
has boen able to do 50,
Wherefore too Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court find
Ms. Laura Hart Messiner in contempt of the Partial Custody Order,
Reaffirm the Partial Custody Order, and expand the current order
to include overnight vinits at least 4 times a year, as well as
award attorney foes of $400 to the plaIntiffs for tho out of
pocket expenses associated with bringing this action,
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
Daniel Pollock, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Lesley Space
Daniel Pollock, Eeq.
3105 Old Gettysburg Road
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
Super. Ct. 1d. 70315
(717) 737-7566
.
I
II
Nav 14 1994
Ie!-
'- .
ARCHIE SPACE and LESLIE SPACE. ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON
Plaintiffs ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
) COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
vs. )
) NO. 94-5349 CIVIL TERM
LAURA HART, )
De f endan t ) CUSTODY
OaDIlR
AND NOlI. this \ 1 day of JJ ~h . 1994. upon receipt of the
conciliator's report, it appearing that the terms of this order have been a9reed upon
,by the parties and by the biological father of the child. William Davis, and that this
order was dictated in the presence of the Plaintiffs. the Defendant. and Mr. Davis, a~d
!!approved by all of them. we hereby order as follows:
1. Primary legal and physical custody of the minor child. Erik Hart, born May 9.
i 1989. sha 11 continue in hi smother. the Defendant. Laura Hart.
2. The paternal grandmother and her husband. the Plaintiffs. Leslie Space and
Archie Space, shall have temporary or partial custOdy of the said child from 10:00 a.m.
':until 7:00 p.m. on the second Sunday of each month. They shall be responsible to
"
"
"provide the transportation tor such periods of temporary or partial custody. The
mother of the child, on no less than fifteen (15) days advance notice to Mr. and Mrs.
i
,Space. may change the date of their period of temporary cuntody from the second Sunday
of the month to the third or fourth Sunday of the month, in the event tllat the child is
not available to be with Mr. and Mrs. Space on the second Sunday of the month because
ot a regularly-scheduled activity of the child or the mother. to include vacations.
which make him unavailable.
!!
I
1";
I.
,I"
f'
~'<>\Iit~,
"--
~':"";'r"::
, .iL '1'1.' ",'."
.,".'1. '.'.,
-.;" . .
,"
Now 15
10 33 ~U '9~
1)/
r ~ l.i
fWI,
I I II~'" l' \ I '
;'},i, ',"
.1.,' I I V
"
:(111
, ,
'" i
,,'
'I'
1
, ,
.
#
-. --."
,.
"
~1.1
.. l66l?' Z A'dftOL I
ll6U:l'lILlL)
Vd 'OI61IJUO . OnUe^v AlJeqn '3" . 1101 Alloqn
UOlIllJodJoO IIllJOIS6eloJd II
UMOJB pUll JeAe)l
"
~
';<- ,
j,,'
"
"
,~ .. . JJt..
. ,
. ". _,t.
. "
" ,
.,
, ,
, '
, ,
"
,
';i,!
"I
"
,
I', '
,
,
, "
;,Jj
','
, '
, '
, ,
, ,
" '
III
'I, ow ...
oW :> 'tl 0 "
.' :. ~ r l:l C ....
jr-.;',;l., .". QJ !-<
.,+. . .... ....;z:
t ',1 ... QJ !:j....
1,,':'\, ')1
'~i t~. wll. a ~i:l.oQ
u ;z: ;z:
~ VlO
0- 0
en ~ Z"-lo.
.: lirE ' f:l <"-
5 ....!-<
Ii!': f:l~~ n~JI
Vl
,en Vl =-....0
"I:' ~ ~ ~ Vlj;Z:
Z W
~' <i:l.o"-
" ~ t w
ooc::.
~ ~!-<w!;;
..~I II) f:l>X .{ ,
... < lOll ~w
~ ~ w~ !-<
~fi : o ;z:
j lOll~oO
o !-<u
',i'
" 12.
..,.,-, ~ ,>
, (1" r~; ~ ,
;:;;:';l}1
("Jl;,.
!::.....
....',.
;';.-( " ::.?
}~~~ 0_'-0
(
";'i:
:;~I
i.O
....,
~
.r,.
-,.
~
~.J
'~'-';lJ
,,'
'.i
i J ~
, j:
l,';;t,
",/
'"
~
~
-
~
~
....
" ,
the apparent position of the Plaintiffs. it wonld be sufe to ussume tlmt they ure questioning the
constitntionulity of either the Adoption Act and/or the Grandparents' Visitation Act. In as much as
Plaintiffs Imvc not complied with Pu, R,C,P, 2:\5 requiring the puny raising the question of
constitutionality to provide notice by registered mail to thl' Attorney General of Pennsylvania, their
constitutional claim shonld be barred,
WHEREFORE. the Defendant prays that this Honorable Coun dismiss the Plaintiffs petition to
tmvc Dcfl~ndunt found in contempt and deny .my fnnher relief sought by the Plaintiffs with regard to
visitation or pania! physical custody rights of Erik Messner,
NEW MATTER
6, Defendant references paragraphs 1 through 5 and incorporates them herein as though stated
in full.
7. The relief sought by Plaintiffs is identical to the relief sought by the moving pany in the case
of Faust v. Messin~er, 497 A.2d 1:\51, ,\45Pa, Super 155 (1985). As the Superior Coun, in a three-page
decision, clearly ruled against the moving panies in the Faust case, it is a demonstral1on of the Plaintiffs'
bad faith that thl'y have raised the same claim in the instant contempt petition,
8, As a funher indication of the vexations nature of the Plaintiffs' action, Plaintiffs, by their
counsel, Daniel Pollock, Esquire, were advised of the existing statutory and conunon law authorities with
regard to the issues cmnplained of in their petition for contempt by Defendant's counsel. Despite the
clear statutory language terminating thl' grandparents' rights, as fun her specified in the Fau,st case and
its progeny, PI.lintiffs Imve continued to pursue this action,
9, The Plaintiffs' pursuit of a cause of action thai is clearly b"rred as is their constitutional
challenge to the Grandparents' Visitation Act. as well as a canse of aclion which is clearly vexatious as
" '
..
~" :I.....-It-~ f
I'd
,
%i
i'
"
,
-
~ M :;
;: ~ g -;
~ :1..( --
,~~ ~< 1
:Il: 4.l IQ., -
._Io"J~ .. =
-. "0.... 4.l -::
<Ii .. .... Vi :
~ QJ .--
~ ~~ "5 1
-.:::..:~o_
',:j
I
.. I
t " L
.'..-/
I
, i
., hi '"
~
c
....
J~ t.,
,g.rcli r ",'. "'~
IiI "
In i
r
w.
I ~ ..t
<( t,) II
~
,. ~
"
, '
.....A.......\..,....,I
"
t.....'
,
, '
, I
-
"
"
~ '
,
,
i
~ I;;
,
]
.~ at: _
U ~.~ =;_
:0"08
--::I:
_ 0 -
... ""-
'~~ g ::a
OMU -=
,". ~,..
,
I
I'
',I I'
j.~
~',f$ ,
, ;.1
,
1'1
,;'l, ,
~\'.." -I, ..
t'.\
!~i .I!
~! sJ:li
!i~ i~l
"
"
t.
II ...
MAY 2 2 19~~
ARCHIE AND LESLEY SPACE.
Plaint iff/Rc~pondellt
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
vs,
NO. 94-5349 CIVIL TERM
LAURA HART MESSNER,
Defcndant!petitioner
IN CUSTODY
ORDER
AND NOW. this _ day of
, 1991, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiffs' Petition
to have Defendant found in contempt is denied, It is also ordered that the courts' November 15, 1994
custody order is vacated. Attorney fees ill the amount of $
shall be paid by the Plaintiff
to the Defendant within thirty (30) days of this order.
BY THE COURT
Edgar B. Bayley, J.,
cc: James J. Kayer, Esquire
Attorney For Defendant
Daniel Pollock, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
IN 1'HE COURT OF C:OMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY
ARCH I E-ANo-LESLEV-SPACE-------
Plaintiffs
614 Erford Road
Camp Hill, Pa, 17011
V,
LAURA HART MESSINER
Defendant
R.D, 111 Box 179
EllioteburS,Pa 17024
No, 94-5349
Civil action-custody
Contempt
------------------------------
f'LA I NT I F~"~; PF:rr T ION TO UA VE; DEf<'ENDANT FOUND I N CONTEMPT
NOW COMEi~ Tho PlaJnLiff::,
through t.h"it' attoru.'y, Ol1niel
Honorable Court a Contempt
Mt."HJsint'n' for t','1 i lur',~ t,l) f,)lJow
CoUt.t <iut",l NovHmbflr lh, t 984
fullow tht;l tl~)t'l'n:~ I)f t.hi~1 ()i'tier',
^t'{~h LU Brld LU~ilfJY Space I by and
Pollock, Esq, to filo with this
Petition against M8, Laura Hart
the Partial Custudy Order of this
nnd, tho thruut to continue not ~o
CONTEMPT
1. On npproximatujy A.JriJ II), [[In? t.hu f'latnUff, L/,m1uy SP"UI:l
t.e.le"hunf'~d th(J DoftJrlll:;lnt I r....1tlt'.~1 1;I:1r~, M/;lnnlnfJr I In ()l:'df~r' t.o makl'_~
ut.t'ungmenL:': t", ptck up h"t' Gt';)lld:,;on, Erik Bart' (MFJs:,dner),
2. During t,ht::l ('()flV(!!':i,-ILiuCl Lh,-, Defendnnt., L;HU"a Har.'t,
Me,,,'; Jng"r, :jL;,t.""d U,,,t, I!:t'lk hClll buon adopted by her new hunband
the pt'evi()ufJ monday ,\fl"l that ";ho would n,1t b>:, .'.11 Lowing F.:rik t,'J
vis'it t,hl'-~m ilny rnUr'H.
3. '1'hA l),r'(l(.~r' Ln pLJ.l,~.~: waG m,'-l(hl ~,)llCF1IJ~jH t.ho H:t'lk'u l'lo'J.tural
fathr:!r, Wllliam Davl;~j, \..1,:1::..1 nuL l.Jxorci.::ilnli~ hifi flo':lrp,n~,nl rights,
thet'eby Bivlrlg riril! tl1 ttle (;t'nrllltlar(~Ilt8 Vl~ilLatl~)n Statute. A
C~)J;-lY' of t.hl:i 'It'dIfH' i:,j ...It,t,;lt.,h\,)d au f'!;{hl.bit A,
4. The nrandp.~r.'pnt.:':'j Wl~-:t't' not ,~l.Y"'Hl nl)til"~tl l,r Lhf-l adopt.lon
hr"!.'1rlng Ilnt,i L :It'L~'I:' (-tjl_~ :1(11)1. tlr)lI W,~l:'; ri.Ildll;;:t:~d.
5.. Th,:, (i1",~lnllp;1t'I".nt:,; HLjf;ht::1 ;-ihcJlll d nllt. h,::lVt-~ h(lf.:n ':Jfff:Jct,:~d. by t,h~J
adO<ion b€jl~,'j,U::iI-J th," "J1:'~h'r' \1/.:1': i.11 ~llrll'l:\ pt'\.(Jt' to the ']flnF,lliot\,
thH nralldpat'IHlt.:3 Wl~'!t'e nl)t nl)tifll:;-!d in ur'dE"r t.o d8t't'Hld their'
r'Lght.::i, ...ltlll t.ht. Gt';tr1llp:lr'I'nl.:, Vi,:,tt,,'IL\..,.lrI ~;L;ILII';,'~'; ..,H't"': cr'u;J,t,nr] Lt1
'It'dc.t' ",!) :\ll'lw t.ll/:,' lit',IIlI!L','lt'/"f!I,;,; :J,ud r}th~.'~' lnf'lnb"'H'::i I-If t.ho fami Iy
Lu h:I'N-' :.j':lml') fllt"m Ilf vl:,;Lt:tt.ll,n/ j:J:lrl',i,_11 "\I:'i~",Jdy' whrlTl t,hl"l Pilt'f1nt
of t.h:lt ,~'hll,1 1:.i rll',lt I,';"l.t'(~j:;tn!!.~ hL::; i'II1',htl IJt' c,-.\n tint, ('XF,t'(:l:-",f'
h l ::; r' i l;~h t. ",,', l'I'! III' ,,) I iI, j
~l,
Wh, 'I"" j', It'"
I"lill"'\ Il.'lt'l
t hi'
~f,. ;
1 i \ I fl I i r r.
,in'l I Ii
111-' '\)1
lit, fl\l. t
1 h,li 1,1. 'I'
.1' I,ll'
I I, ,rl' It.. I t'i I \' I 'L \1 J r' I f i rll;
.11 I j ,\ J I:U;J l','}l_ly (n ',[('1',
,,)',.!...' ,
'I'~";\'.," ,
,If, ~_~~ .\
iw- j..."......-......
'" a "I
'J ' 1'\ ,t}.
, "'J.
\ '
I,
" 'i
r.r:
'F,'I !:D.{)rr\CF.
, "..., , '''.' ')1',"'(
1~1r: r,I:-"\',: ;. ,( ,'~'\
q, H'R?<) r:~ ,3::\0
t '\'Il!'
il.JI'.;, ..,' ' ':;,,',"
PUIl"~i\~,,"II\
"
, I,
1\,
,,.
','i
\
'-I'
"
"
"
"
,I
.:
','
...
1/It4i.-J_:llo1f'!"~,IM.;>..A..11JjPil.l.VW<iI~~/..,-;,..,~..;k~,j-ih".'
:,
"
."'~...i....."'~~;;i~~......'..-"~~
" ' 1."
''''''''~I.jIj{W
~
'" i.
I
.
.
.
"
.,
,
I
I,
r,"","'1
~
"
'~~.-
_ fJ: I;,
, '
.\~ ,
''--..)
~r 8- l
c... ,,)
0. . -::'\... "-I I{)
1{.j ( , ~ ,)-
'... 00
~ (~ II, ,.J r-- -
VI .-...... - .,::)
I..,J C1l
._~ 1Jf (j -..
to
~, '~ L') :t- ,~ ~ 1t
. ':J "'"
~~:-:! ~
~ i'l' I:::.J
""
~~
':'..J \
... ,~
v~
"
. "
.
,
SEP 22 1994 ,je.-
"
e. The Father of this child, Erik, is Bill Davis. He currently
resides at 62 North Baltimore Street, Mount Holly Springs, Pa.
17065. He is currently Divorced.
4. The Plaintiff's are the Child's (Erik's) Paternal Grandmother
and SteP-Grandfather.
They currently reside with:
Cheryl Davis, who is Lesley Space's Daughter
Christina Klepacz, Who is Lesley Space's Granddaughter
Joseph Klepacz, Who is Lesley Space's Grandson
Note: Both of the Klepacz Children are the children of Cheryl
Davis.
5. The defendant is the Mother of the Child in ~Jestion, Erik,
She resides at 79 Mountain Street, Mount Holly Springs, Pa.
17065.
She resides there with Erik, and a boyfriend whose name the
Plaintiff's do not know.
6.a. The plaintiffs have not participated as a party, a witness,
or in any other capacity in any litigation or court action
concerning the custody of this child.
b. The Plaintiffs have no knowledge of any custody proceedings
concerning this child, Erik Hart, but within the past 2 weeks
have discovered that Erik's Mother is suing Erik's Father for
more support.
c. The Plaintiffs know of Bill Davis, The son of Lesley Space,and
the father of Erik Hart, who has claims to visitation or custody
of Erik, but these claims have been ignored by Laura Hart for at
least the past year. a copy of this complaint will be mailed to
him, and he has been made aware of this action.
1. The Best interest of Erik Hart will be served by the granting
of the relief r~quested. This complaint was filed because the
Plaintiff's prevailing on this complaint is the only way Erik
will have more than nomillal exposure to his Father's side of his
family.
A. Laura Hart has thwarted any and all attempts by Archie and
Lesley Space as well as anyone else on Erik's father's side of
the family to see Erik for at least the past year until she filed
an action against 8ill Davis for child support. modification. Then
on August 18, 1994. Laura Hart brought Erik to the Space
residence for a visit. It is obvious that the only times that
Laura Hart will allow Erik to have any contact with the Spaces is
when she is asking for more child support.
,
\
...,
, ,
of
',1,
I
'I
.. "
r(~'
,'1"
,"""1
it;
.:)
j,."
;,."
. ,<
ii,
}.'~.
, ~,.;
~I
M:
.. ).
, ,
i
, .:'
l'.:
}'
r.
I
b
>h
"
,.
4. .
.A,.
.'
.
adoption pursuant to S~ction 271101' the Adoption Act. The court, on March :\1. 1997, approved the
pmposed adoption, Notice of the March .\ I. 1997 hearing was provided to Williaul Davis. Jr., by
certitied letter. restricted delivery. The father received said notice and sigm'd for the letter on January
23. 1997. On or about April :\0, 1997. the paternal grandmother .lIId her husband t1i<'d a lll'tition fur
contempt .1lleging that the naturallllother was refusing scheduled visitations, This Honorable Court. on
May I. 1997, entered a rule against the natural mother to show cause why she shouhlnot be held in
contempt for the reasons set forth in lhe grandmother's petition,
II. AR(~UMENT
A. Standing
Plaintiffs rely upon the Custody and Grandparents Visitation Act, 23 P.S, Section 1001, et seq.
to seek visitation with the grandchild, Section 5312 of that Act, provides that a grandparent of a party
may be granted reasonable partial custody or visitation rights if the court finds that visitation rights or
partial custody are in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent - child
relationship,
While it was appropriate for visitation to occur between the grandmother and child prior to the
adoption, once the adoption occllITed, the grandmother's visitation rights were extinguished by statute,
Section 5314 of the Grandparent Visitation Act, states in pertinent part that Section 5312 "sha\1not apply
if the child has been adopted by person other than a step-parent or grandparent. Any visitation rights
granted pursuant to this section prior to the adoption of the child shall be automatically terminated
upon such adoption" (emphasis added), The reference to step-parent would apply for the paternal
grandmother only if her son had remarried and the child was being adopted by the son's wife, As the
actual adoption that occurred involved the paternal grandmother's daughter-in-law and her new husband.
...
..
.~
.
4' .
COllies rmm the Custody and Grandparents Vbitation Act. Howewr. the Superior Court noted that
Section 5:114 of that Act clearly terminates grandparental visitation rights upon adoption, The Court
stated thut as there arc no rights for grandparenH~lnotification of the adoption pursuant wthe Adoption
Act, and as the GralHlparl>nts' Visitation Act docs not specifkally create a right to notice in an adoption
pmcl'eding, that the IlIother acted appropriat,'ly in pursuing the adoption without providing the
grandparents' advance notice, Any challenge as to whether the Grandparents' Visitation Act should
contain such a notice provbion, is a constitutional ch.lllenge and as such. requires the Attorney General's
office to be notified in .Idvance of the proceeding.
While the Superim CO\ll1 in Faust recognil.,~d that its decision was a harsh one to the
grandparents, it noted that "the entire body of law pertailling to adoption harmonizes in order to place
an adoption child in the shoes of a natural child in all legal respects, failing only to alter the biological
make-up of the child." The Court goes on further to say "rights of inheritance are changed; parental
and filial rights and duties are altered; birth records <Ire substituted; <ldopt;,OJI records <Ire impounded,
In every possible respect, <111 f<llllily rel<ltionships are thus re-established within the <ldopting family and
<Ill ties with the natural family are eradicated,"
As there is cle<lr precedent establishing tlmt the act of adoption severs the grandp<lrents' rights
to pal1ial custody. the Plaintiffs petition for contempt should be denied,
C. Constitutional Challenge
The Plaintiffs, in pamgraph 5 of their petition for contempt, state that "The Grandparents Rights
should not have been <lffected by the adoption because the order was in place prior to the adoption, the
Grandparents were not notified in order to defend their rights. and the Grandparents Visitat:un Statues
(sic) were created in order to allow the Gmndparents and other members of the family to have sOllie
form of visitation/partial custody when the p<lrent of that child is not exercising his right, or can not
~. .
.,,,. .
<4 ~ .
exercise his l'ight 10 see the dlild", This appe,lrs to be a poorly aniculatl'd challenge as 10 the
constitutilJllallty of the Grandparents' Visitation Act. As was dl'arly establishl'd in the Blusl cas.... in
order to prop...rly challenge th... wnstitutionalily of a slatute, the claimant must comply with till'
pl'ovisions of I'a. RCP, 235 and I'll, itA,!', 521 requiring notice to Ihe AllOI'll"'y General of a
constitutional dmllenge to a statUI..., At no time did th... Plaintiff provide such nolic... pursuant to thos...
rules, Accordingly, as this question is not pl'llperly raised befm... this coun. Ih... C'JUn should deny any
relief based nponthe du... process claim. '111is is a result that was flll10wed not only in the Faust case,
but in the Hill case as well.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs lack slanding to pursue a petition for cont...mpt. Archie Space, as a non-blood relmive
of the grandchild, has no statutory right to assen a claim for visitation or panial custody, As a step-
grandparent. he has no rights protected under the Grandparents Visitation Act. Leslie Space had standing
to pursue her visilation rights. and had actually done so in 1994, However, upon the conclusion of the
adoption that occurred on March 31, 1997, those rights were tenninated. She has not preserved her right
to pursue a constilutional. due process argument as she has not properly notified the State Attorney
General's Office of her intention 10 challenge the validity of the statute, Her right to notice of the
adoption proceeding has not been recognized by any statutory authority, The fact that her son did not
communicate tlmt Ihis adoption was occurring, is an interpersonal problem within that family, the
Messners should not be penalized due to a lack of communication between the Spaces and Mr, Davis,
The Messners pursued an adoption in the manner prescribed by the Adoption Act and complied
with the law in each step of the way. The Coun appropriately approved the adoplion, Clear authority
has been established regarding this question and Plaintiffs are pursuing an argument which has been
..
.
...
w
497 ~ 2J 1.1~1, H~ 1'. Sup", I~~, Fllu,1 V \b""I4"I, (['II SlIpe' 1 <J:l,\)
Pll~t I
'13~1 HI P. Sup'" 1~.1
AU'"1 FAUST, App"lI.ul.
v,
Jo..ph L MESSIN(iER. Tlu'"I.' SII)dei Illld R
B""I1) Su\del
OOO~71'1l1. 1985
SUpt:1 iVI Cuull vi' P,"IIIl~)h'allia,
A'gu.d ~IIlY 23, 198,\
Filed Aug 23, 1'185
GHlIulllllJlhCI ~lJu~hl "i:tilallull IiglJl~ with hel
glluuhulI fulluwing hil'l uJuVli\JlI TiI.. ('UllllllUII Plca::t
CuulL ur ~ullhalllvlllll Cuunty, Ci\il Dj\i~iulI. :\U:'i
1984-(-1610Ilud 1982-1149. F,.,,,,i,,.., J, "nt.",J
01\1':1 utll)illg HlitllJlIlUlhcl ...biluliulI liglil) uno
I'clU5in~ to Icnpcll I1duVliun pi occcdiIlH), find
1:\,"IIJ"'''lh., .pp".led fhe SUIJCIi", C"LIII, 00057
Philadelphia. 198~, Iblel, J, held Ih.1 (I)
glitIIJlllulbcl') duilll ;,ulluulllcd Iv do ddilll dial
CU)\uuy amI GlaIlJ~.HUtllb Vi~il;.,lillll .~d WiS)
Ulllo:ulI::tliluliulliil. i1.JIl.l v.a) bi:uICU CUI ld..ilult: tv ~I"t:
1 t4uil t:J Ilulil,;t: Iv aUulllt:y gem:l al \,i' l.;ull~(iluliulldl
I,:liaJlt:Il!!;t: lu i1 :<\lalulc, (2) gli1I1JlIIlIl"t;:I'~ lighllu ~ct;:k
visitation under A~t ",as !lot all ~IJlitlelllelll jJI'OIl,."\:kd
by due ploce" c1au,e, and ,uch lighl could Ihu, be
1t:llIlilliilc:J by aduP1iun pi u"c:~illg~ wilhuulllulj~c: 10
gramllllutht:l, UIU.l (3) glH.IlJlllu1hC:I'~ !!IlalLJlul)
t:lltillt:lllt:lIt Lu ,)l:ck "i')i1aliull wilh IIC:I gJalllbulI C:IlUC:u
wh~1I aduptiun c.JC:l.:I~e was glHnlcd
AlIi'llled,
I. CONSTlTUTlONALl.AW 1<252,5
92
92XII Due Proce.. or LAW
921<252 5 Right., inle' e'l!, bendil', '"
pli"ilegl:~ illvul"ed, ill gelll:lal
PaSupcr, 1985
"''hen a legally protected interest is creald by
statute, provisions of statute must be (,,(ilmintd to
dctennine whether due proee.. guarantee, apply
2,
CONSTlTUTlONALl.AW k44 1
92
9211
Construction,
Enforcement of
Provisions
Dettnnination
Que!!ion.
92k44, 1 III gene,.L
Operalion. and
Constitulional
92k44
of ConSlitul,onal
Fllllllclly 92k4.1
I'a Super. I YIlS
(iIlWJlIllJtlll,:I'~ ddilll thl,t (\utuJ~ "lid
GlalldI'D'.II11 Vi"lalioll Acl, 2,1 I'S S,,;, 1001 el
~li:~I, \"hid, pCllllih IS ~llmdpltlClll Iv ~l:ck \i~illlliun
but ItlllJjIIBlr:~ ~IB,uJpulelllal \i~itCllilln rights upon
uJuptiuu. l.ltilh:J elltltlel11tnt 1t:l.tUllill~ Ill)tj~&: uno':l
du~ I-'IOl.C!\~ I,.llHJ"IC ut" lIJ..)~tion helll ill~ "hkh
ICllllilliJh:d ht:1 Ij~I:I~ {H1lllutlleJ \(1 " duilll lhul A\:l
"as Ulh,:uIIMIluliulllll rlll liuring 11., ~:-.I..bli~h IhJlice
jJlU'ii~iull:'J I'ollli....I)IIIH Jut;: pll~Jl.:t;tl~ ll.:ljuiltlllenl!:l. blld
"liS IhLJ~ lllllll.::d llc":-uu~~ it JiJ Ilul cOlllply \\lith
Pllwi!!livm or Rult"S Civ PlOt.;. Rullo" 235 and Rul~&
App PIOC, Rule 521. ICI{uilin~ IIl)li.:e to UHulllty
Henelnl l,f a ,ulI~ljtulilJnal c.h"lIeJlg~ tll a ~latutc:
use A C,,",I A'II"nd 14
3 CONSTlTUTIO:-\ALLAW 1<2740)
92
92XlI
92\...274
Du~ PI ~J~~~S of La\N
Dt:VI iViili(JlI ur Pel....olltsl Righls in
Gcllelal
9:"-274(5) P,i"iH':Y. lIIillliagc. family. and
~:\uallllHlh:rs.
Pa Super, 1985
Grandmother's clllillelll~nl under Cwuody and
GrAndparents Visil.tion Act, 23 P S See, 1001 el
:ro.cq. to seck visitalion with grandson, which would
have bel.:n glantt:d 01' denied as bc~l illte'e~ls of child
dictilted, waS /lut plolL'Cted by due plocess clause and
could be tcrminaled by csJupljoll plOceedings wilhoul
notice to gl8ndmother and withoul hearing, de!pite
alleged intenlional withholding fj ull1 her of child's
v.-heleaboulS plioI' to adoplion plOceedjll~S, 23
PaCSA. Soe 2101 cls"q
4 CONSTlTlJTlO:-\ALLAW 1<274(5)
92
9:XlI Due Pm"," uf Luw
92k274 Deprivllion of Personal Righls in
Gtn.,.1
92k274(5) Privacy; marriage. family, and
se,<ual matters
Pa Suptr, 1985
Ril:\hts of I:\randparent undtr Cu.tody and
Grandparents Visitation Act, 23 PS Sec. 1001 e(
~C'q. to ~etk \'isitalion with grandc.hild and to visil
grandchild if vis,tal'OIl i. glanted Are Ilot .ubject to
pl'ocedural pl"l"}tections of due pn:lI:',tSS clause, such
righ!> may proporly be termillaled in all adoptioll
pl'oceedin~ without noli~e to grandparent and wilhout
Copyrighl <0 West Publi,h,ng Co, 1996 No claim Ie origillal U S Govt works,
4'
497~1d 13SI, .14~ Pa Super, I'~, fau>! v ~1<:"inger,IPa Super 1%5)
hearing 2.1 Pa C S A See 2101 el,eq
5, ADOP nON k2tJ
17
11U'J R:ghl', ~utie', an~ li.bilitie, cre.le~
in generul
Pa Super 1%5
(jrllndmu\hl'r'~ ~ltllutory 1:111itlt:IlH:llt under
Cu.IC>~Y and Grandparent' Vi,ilalion I\CI, 23 P S
See, 1001 et ,eq, to ,eel. vi,ilation "ilh her grand,on
endtu \~hl'n uJlJ~lj(.l1l JCI,;ICC t:(1I1('crniny gruno!otoll
wa. grante~ 2J Pa (' S A See 2101 et 'eq
(345 Pa Super 1571 D"ighl!. DkII.'C', Ea,lO,l.
ror appellanl
Jocl M Scheer, Ea'llln, I(J!' appellee'
Berore CA VANAt;GH. CIRILLO an~ HESTER,
Jl
HESTER, Judge
Appellal1l. a grandrnolher. has appealed rr')1ll an
order which denied her v"ilalion right, with her
grand,on lollowing his adoption Said Older alba
rerused 10 reopen Ihe pruceediJ!g which had re.ulted
in his adoplion by appellees, Her c1.ims are ba,ed 0'1
I) the fact that the boi' falher kille~ his "ife (the
boy's mother and the appellant's ~aughter), 2) the
allegedly intentional and malicious am of appellees in
wilhholding from her Ihe child's "heroabouts as "ell
as the pendency of the a~option proceeding, 3) the
Custody and Grandparents Vi.itation Act [CGVA],
2.1 PS, See lL'OI__.e.L~~ "hich permits a
grandparent to ,eek ,i,it.lIon of a gr.n~ehild under
certain eireunmances applicable 10 appellant. and 4)
her lack of notice of Ihe a~option proceeding which
she daim~ \iolatcU procedural due proce~s
requirements_ Despite tnC'!ote faCl(Hs. \\e affirm
(345 PaSuper, 15&1 BACI\GROU1\D
Michael Snyder Wab born on Ocwber 0, i 9'19, to
Joseph Me..inger and Sheila Me"inger Jo.eph
Me..ing.r l.ille~ Sheila on June I, 1982, and wa, duly
convicted and sentenced to 3cr..e th'c to tirleen years
for Ihe aggra'aled ma"slaughter 01 his "ite In late
1982, Michael, then Ihree ~ea.. (,Id, "a, adopled b~
the Snyde.. in a proceeding wherein' Jo.eph
Me..inger relinqui,hed his paremal right. 10 the boy
Approximalely a yea' .nd a half later, Ihe
~
PRlle 2
"ppellanl, Anna Fau>!, Sheila Mc>>inger', mother,
learned of her gran~'on" "he,eaboulS an~ the filel 01
hi, adoption, Shc lile~ hUlh a cCilnplaint li,r custody
and a pClilion to intell'elle in the a~"pti(ll\,llunC !l'Y
luo~ Atlhe cI",e of the pleading" Ihe lliatlers 'H,e
eonsoli~alcd and upon 1l,',lioll ti,r ju~gment on the
pleadings, Ih. c"urt ~"rni"e~ hcr claim 1')[ cllstody
and her 1'(:4uc.;~t 10 intt:rl,('nc in the luJopliun
procee~ing She ha, "ppeale~ from Ihe order of
di,mi"al
ADOPTION
Appellanl argue, that 'Ippdlces maiiciulI,ly hid
the chil~', whel(,."',"IS tiom her, intenlionally
concealed from the adoption court hcr knov.n intert!ll
in her gland'un'> cu,to~y, an~ I:.iled to notit)> her of
the a~optlon procee~ing, Coupled "ith Ihe,e
inequitie., appellant tlaim, Hlllt the a~()ption ,iolated
pro""dUlal due proee>> requirements by te"ninalJng
her right~ \..ithout giving ht:r llo1i(;~ uf the hearing
fhe CGVA entitl.. a gr;ln~parenl 10 ,eek ,i,itation
rights 10 a child whlSe parent i, ~eeea'cd, 23 P S
Soo, 10 12, an~ an in~epcn~ent right to .eek vi,italion
of a child who has re,i~e~ "ilh the gran~parent for
t"el\e Inonth, or more, 2.1 PS See, i014, both of
"hich gJoun~' apply in Ihi, case, An a~option deer.e
terminate> the vi,italion righl> of a grandparent
regardle" (Jf "\351 their ba,is, 23 PS See, lOIS,
so appellant claims a dlle process right to notice of the
hearing "hich lcrlllinale~ her rights
[I] She "a,es Ihi, claim on FlIentes v, Shevin,
407 US, u7, 80, 92 S Ct, 1983, 1994, 32 L Ed1d
556 (1972), "hich (.145 Pa Super 1591 I,olds Ihal
procedural due process elltilles a pcr~oll ",hose rights
may be aflected by an action to be heard, and 10 enjoy
Ihal righI, he muSI b. notilied olthe proceedings, III
addition, wilen a Il:!o(ally prolcct'-'u interest is cleattd
by stallJlC, Ihe pHJ\blllllS ot' the Slalute' must be
examined to dcterminc whethtr or not due process
applies Ing,am v O'Bannon, ,;34 F Supp, 385
IE D Pa 1981) It i, axiomatic thaI the due proce..
clause does nOI creale the right but prolects the right
created b) statute or other legal basis
In Ihis ca,., appellant ~oe. not rely on a righr
"eated by the Adoption Act, 23 Pa, See, 2101 ~
~~Q.. conceding Ihat as a grandparenl ,he "as not
entitled to notice under the provisions of the
Adoption Act, Her claimed e"litiement com.. from
Ihe CGVA, "hich permits a grandparent 10 seek
visitation bUllerminal.. grandpa rental v;,italion rights
lIpon adopti(JIl T",o rea.ons compel us 10 deny Ihe
Copyright <0 West Publishing Co 1996 1"0 claim 10 ori!{,iAall; S Gov!. "orks
.. .
497 "12d 13:"1, 345 Pa Super 155, Fau't v Me"inger, ,Pa Supc, l.j85,
appellant's due process argumclll
l2J til~l, It \irnuulIl:'t lu a diiillllhat the ((iV'A is
UllcolIstilutional tor tailing to establish "1353 Ilollce
provisions \\hich salis1)' due process l'c4uirclllcnt~.
Sueh . e1aim i, barred because il does nOl <omply
with the prmi,ions of Pa ~ (iv P 2,;5 and Pa RAP
521, n:quil'illg Ilutice to the 3ltOlllCY gt:llt'r~1 (tt' a
constitutional challenge 10 a statute, See !\.f&lIcr (l(
Adoplion uf (IuislOpher P, 48u Pa 79, 'I,), .i89 A 211
94,100 (1978)
l.i J Second, Ihe entillement claimcd by appellant
docs Ilot amount to one "lI"h lI\u~1 be PIO(~(:(t.d by
the due process cll1u~c it is an entitlement I..Hlly to
~ visitation "",hich will be granted (If denied .j!; tlte
best imeresls ollbe child dictate, 2.i I' S, Secs IIJI2,
1014, Prior to his adoption, while the Matute entitled
her to do flO, apptilam did Ilot ill~titule an action for
visitation of her gH.tnd~on. nor docs she e~plain her
failure to do so ,F)'.; I)
[4 J hen Jt' ,he had obtained a vIsltation order
prior to the adoplion proceedlllg, how",er, ,he would
stand in Ihe jj45 Pa Super lll(ll same position
Under Ihe (GVA, bOlh Ihe incipient right 10 seck
visitation and any "isilatio/1 rights airt:ady tMablished
by coun mdtr art extinguished upon the adoption of
the child. 23 I' S SeC, 101 j Such evanescent righls,
rim protected by slalute inl98l, 23 P S Sec 1001_ej
K\L are not ones which aClivate the procedlllaJ
protections 01 the due proct~s cll1use Th~ limiTed.
transitory nal.ure ot g,.a:ldpal~lllal visitation pri\ilcges
~el forth in the statute cOllvinces us tbat the privileges
may properly be lerminated in an adoption. just as all
familial ties bctwcen an adoptee and olher blood
relatives are sc\'ered, without notice and without
hearing
\'ISIT ATIO"
[5J If.ppc/!ant', right to inrenene in the .d"pric1I1
proceeding i, demed, ,he claims Ihat !he j,
n~vfnhf:'lf~~ l:'l1Iillf:"rl to ~,..k vi"lifAlion IInrtl;"r Thp
CGV A Her argument i, rhat ,ince the ad"ption cut
off her visitalion ri~hts and she "n",'er received any
notice coneerning the adoplion, ,he should continue
to enjoy Ihe benefit, and right' conferred upon her by
the Act" Hrief lor Appellant at 1.1 Aller
,ejecting appellant's constitutional allack on Ihe
Adoption Act, We cannot sustain her anack on the
CGV A provi,ion wNeh rerminates grandpa'ental
viSItation when a child i, adopted Having held th11l
~
P.~e .)
ttppellam \\'3!) not cntith:d to notice of \ne adoption
proeeeding, and thus acceplinll its ,alillilY, w.
necessarily accept the consequence appellalll's
~latutory entltlcment 10 !\Ct:k \.'I~ilation ",Jtll her
grand,on ended when the adoption denee was
llrallled
Ihe policy wlllch olCtales thi, apP1lemly harsh
t<sult IS "ell e>labli,hcd I hc i;lIl11e body of law
pCl10ining 10 aduptlon hhrmonilt.:~ in order to place an
adopted child", thi; ,hocs of a m,tu,al child in allkgal
respects, tailing ~lnly 10 :~llcr the bi()logicall11akcup or'
the child. I he intenllon and result 01 the law is to
enlold an adopted child", hIS ncw tillluly so as to be
indistingui~hl;!.tJlc liam hiS ncw ~ibltllgs in every
possiblc 'especl
(345 Pa Super loll ~ights ot' illhe,itancc are
changed; parental and lilial rights and duties al C
altered; birth recmd~ arc ~LJb!ltituled. adoption
records are impounded In every possible respect, all
liUllily ,elarion,hips arc thu, rcestablished within the
adopting taOllly and ail ties with the naturaltamily a,e
eradicated
"In Pennsyl,ania a ,alid ad('ption 'e"lS the child
r'rolll its natural tamily tree and tngratis it upon
that 01 its new parentage Thereatier the child
anains the status, in law, ot' a natural child of the
adopting parents l'a\C's Estare, .i2o Pa 358.
192 A ,jov[193iJ"
It is our opinion th.at adoptivc or natural
parents should ha," the right to selcct the persons
with whom their child will associate as long as
they propcrly perlorm their duties to the child
To take this right away lioln proper parem,
"JJ~". ",ould not be 10r the b~sl interest 0" lile
child
CvlHmuli\.\ealth e:'\ reI. D~lg\.)I~ '\' Chen), 19("
Pa Super, 46, 48, 17.1 ,\:d 650. 651 (1961) We
belie"e th,11 Ih05.'dopti\'. parent' "hould also be
~ermilled to ~d~ct the p~r~0n' with whom Ihe child
will now cl!4$ociate in order to effectuate his best
int~res15
Order at1irmed
~'N I fler ignorance of Ihe chIld', whereabouts. rather
Ihan pre'-ellting the COllimtnCement oi a custody
aC1ion. would ha\C rendered eoun ,anctloned
discovery mea,uru ill & pending actio" panieulatly
va/uableto her,
(opyright ,I,) Wen Publi!J1ing Co /9% No claim to orillinalll S Gov\. works
....
625 j'( 2J 642,425 Pa Supe. 355, IIJII v Di,ccd,in, (ra Supe' 1993)
'641 425 I'~ SUpCI. 355
Ru,e IIILI. ""'U Willialu Hill, Appellee"
,
Nancy DI VE{TI 110, Appellanl.
Superior loUn of Pcnn'yl,ania.
Argued Dee 12, 1991
FiledFeb 12, I'Nl.
Reargument Denied April 2b, 1993.
Grandmulher and "epgrandt"lher tiled pe""nn
),,' g.andpa,enlal partial cU>ludy in cU'ludy aeliun
commenced by falh.. allcr partics wcre divurced.
The lOun uf Commun Pl...., uf Erie Cwnly, Civil
Nu. 2264-A-1985, Oumi"uvich. J, g.amed partial
cusludy lu g,andmulhe, and 'Iepg,andl"th"" and
muther appeared Thc Supcriur Cuun. No. S22
Pin.burgh 1991, hcld Ihal (I) grandmother had
..anding 10 a"ert cau,", of action undcr Grandplll'enl>'
Vi.ilalion Act against hcr o"n daughter; (2)
stepg,andt"lher lacked slanding lu ."en causc ut'
IU.1ion under the Act; and n) mother wai...,t:d review
ut' her con,tiluliuna' challengu lu Ihe Act by '''iling lu
comply with thc ,e4ui.emenl> for challenging
conslitulionalicy of slatuh:s in civil ClIse,
Allirmed in pan and .c,e"ed in part
)
CONTEMPT k20
93
931
93kl9
ACI, ur Conduct ConSliluting
Contempt ufCoun
Di.obedienc. to Mandate, O.der,
or Judgmem
In general
93k20
Pa Super. 1993.
Order i..ued by court with juri,diction ov.r
,ubject maner and person mu,1 be obeyed by panies
until il i. reverood by orderly and proper proceeding'.
2 CONTEMPT k6b(4)
93
9311 Po"'er 10 Punish, and Proceeding.
Therefor
93k66 Appeal or Error
93k66(4) Right of review and partie.
Pa Super. 1993
Generally, ",here di.obedience of court order i.
llagrant and ",here appellant has been held in
contempl or given opponunity 10 pre..nt e'cu.o for
di.obedi.nee and e..cu.e i. not acceptabl., d.nial or
~'
1'.".1
appcal ,lluul\! fulluw,
3,
CONTEMI'T k66(4)
9.1
9311 1'0"cl' lu l'Ullish, alld I'JOc,"ding.
Thcrcfor
93k66 Appeal or Error
93k66(4) Right of review and par'.ie.
[See headl10lc Ie" below]
3 CO'<TEMPT kSO
9.1
9311I Puni,hment
93kS0 Oe"ial of privilege. a.litigalll
PaSuptl' 1993,
The Superior Court is not compell.:d sua sp<>nle
lu 4U.,h app..1 ",h." appella"l is ill cuntempt of Irial
~UUll'S uult:r if Ji!u.:ult~iull uf me:rih uf c.:a~c: wuuld
pruvid. edificalio" lu bUlh bench alld bar,
4. PARENT ANO CHILD k2(20)
285
28Sk2 CU'ludy and COlltrol ufChild
28Sk2(4) Proce.dings lu Oelermine Right
2!!Sk2(20) Revie",
PaSuper, 1993
Appeal frum order granling cU'lody right. 10
grandmulher and 'lepgrandl"lher may proceed desp~e
mol her's conlempluous disubedience of trial coun'.
order, where ,..olulion of issue ",ould have
.ignificallt imponance to bench and bar in light of
discussion~ of "'lmillir i~suc~ in which action could nOl
be maintained by grandparent again't hi. or her o",n
son ur d.ughter. 23 ParSA Secs, 5311-S313.
S
COL'RTS kJ7(2)
106
1061 Nature, Exlent, and berci,e of
Juri,dietion in General
106k37 Waiver ofObjeclion.
106k37(2) Time of making obje.'!ion,
[See headnute le,1 belo", ]
5
COURTS k39
106
1(,61 Nalu,e, EXlent, and Exerci.e of
Jurisdiction in General
106k39 Derermination of questions of
juri,diction in sen.ral
Copyrighl <CI We'l Publi,hing Cu 1996 No cLtim 10 original U S Govt "'ark.
4 .
~
"..1
Pagel
025 ~ 2d 642, ,125 Pa SLJper .155. Hill v lli..((hiu, (I'll SLJl'er 199.1)
[See hcndnule Ic,t below)
Pa.Super. 1993,
Que'tion uf subject ",alter juri.di(liun "'") be
raised at any limc, by any pany, 1lI by (OUlt Mia
sponle,
6, DIVORCE k299
134
134 VI Custody and Suppon of Children
1J4k299 Access 10 child by pa"'nl dcpri\ cd
nf cu.'itody.
Pa Super, 1993.
G.andparenls 01' child whose parents ",c..
l.!i\'ull.:tu UJ invuht'd ill di~~ululiull J.lluu:cuillg~ ilia)'
maillt3in action lor pauial visitation 01 panial custody.
even if 8randpal'enls we," pale"'s of custodial palcnt
7, STAfUTESkl90
361
361 VI Construction and Operation
361 VI(A) O<'I1c..1 Rules of Construclion
361 k 1 87 Mellning of I.anguage
361 k 190 bisten<o of ambi!!,ui.y
Pa Super, 1993
When words of statute ale unambiguous. they are
not to be disreSlll'ded under pretext of pursuing spirit
of statute, I Pa CS A Sec. 1903(a)
8, PAI{El';'1 AI'\D CHILD k2( 17)
285
285k2 Custody and COlllrul ,,[ Cliild
285k2(4) Proceedings 10 Detemnne Righi
285k2( 17) Temporary cuslody. visilation
and rt:l1lt,)\lal from jurisdktion,
Pa.Super. 1993.
Unambiguous words of Grandparents' Visitalion
Act which ,late "upon application of parent or
grandparent of pany" preclude mOl her's slepfalher
from asserting caU5e of action for visitation of
S1epgrandchild. even if in conjunction with child's
nalural grandmother 23 Pa C S A, See 5312
9,
APPEAL Ai'iD ERROR kI70(2)
30
JOV Presentation and Reservation in
Lower Court of Grounds of Review
30V(A) Is.un and Que.tion. in Lower
Court
30k 170 Nalu,e or Subject-Matter of
losun or Question.
30k 170(2) Constitutional questions
9
COI'STlTlJTIONAL l.AW k441
92
9211
Operation, alld
Cl1II,titulional
COIISIIUClioll.
Enli.lfI:ellll:n1 of
Provisions
[Mennination of Constitutional
Qucstion,
92k44 1 In gene..1
92kH
Pa Super. 199.1
Appellale court w,lI not consid(r challenge IU
l,;uIIMiIUll\J1lalil)' uC !)hituh: if issue has not betn raised
in court below or if no nOlice has been given 10
Attorney Genelal.
10.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k441
92
9211
Operation, and
Constirutinnal
Construction,
Enforccmem of
Pro\'i~ion!\
Delermination of Constitutional
Questions
92k44 I In g.neral
92k44
[See headnote text below]
10. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW k46(2)
92
9211 Construction, Operation, and
I::JlfuICl:1T1t:nt uf Constitutional
Provi'sioJls
92k44 Determination of Conslilulional
Questions
92k46 )\;ecessity of Delerminaliun
92k46(2) Form and sufficiency or
objection or alle~ation.
Pa.Super. 1993
Proper method 10 attack constitutionality of
statute in civil case is 10 plead issue and give nOlice 10
Attorney General Rules Civ.Proc, Rule 235, 42
PaCS^,
II
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW kH I
92
9211
Operation, and
C on.titutional
Con:-ltruction,
Enforcement of
Provi,ioM
Determination of Con.titu1ional
Queotion.
92k.44 I In senerat
92k44
Copyrighl Ci West Publi.hing Co. 1996 No claim 10 original U S, Gov!. ",ork"
.. .
~25 ..211 ~4." -I~5 P. Sup.r .155, Ilill v Di",-.hiu, (Pa Super 1')9,\)
~.
1'8g~J
Pa.Sup.,. 1993.
Trial l:lJllIl 1.1I u~'ctly Il:lll~fo:d hI itJJu:~~ dl1illllt
challenging con\titutionality <)1' (;, andparelH"
Vi!liLatiun A~l. whcr~ llIo1h.:r illilially li\Il.:J 10 dppd~~
Attorney Gencral's ollke of hc. planned challenge, Iu
the "':Ollstilulionalily 01' ~laUJlc liI'sl UPOIl liling
\l.\.(';l:~li"lIl:'t tu \":U!'ItllJy LuulIM:lul':) IriUIlHiI~nJo.Iljull)
and then bd~ ":,..)\ll11i~n';cIllCJll or helll i1lg d~ Ilu\l) ,
Rules CivPrn.:. Rul~ :J~. 4: ra C SA. Rul-.:~
Apprlllc, Rule 521(a), 42 POl C SA, 2.1 r. C S A
S.c. 5312.
12 CO:-;STITUTlO:-;AI.I.AW k4.1(1)
92
9211 ConslIuction, Operation. and
Ent'or..::ell1cl1l Dr" (onstitutional
Provisions
92k41 Persons [milled .0 R.i,~
Cunstitutional Questions
92k43 ESloppel or Waiv~r
92k43( I) In g~n~ral
Pa,Super, 1993
Moth~r waived nghtlo chall~ng~ constitutionality
of Grandpar~IllI' Visitation Act, though sh~ bdat~dly
gave nOlice 10 AlIorney General', olliee atier ,rial
coun refused to address her constitutiollal challenges
10 the Slatute, motl,er had ample opponunity to
nOlifj; AlIorn~y Ce,.,..al's ollic~ of her planr,ed
constitutional challenges before hearing de nO\o
oc",,,ed. Rules Civ.Proc, Rule 235. 42 Pa.C SA,
Rules App.Proc, Rule 521(a) 42 Pa C SA. ~3
PaCSA Sec. 5312.
'64J 1-125 PaSupcr. 3571 Victor E. Vuuga.
BUlk.., for appdlant
Beil)l~ I\0-v--Lr."-. ?r~sident judge, and KELLY
and CERCO:-;E, 11.
vvilliv" PER CL"RIAJ,,;.
III lilt:, o?nioll ~ I1le cdHaJ Upufl hJ Jcl"el ntllll:
whclhe. Ihe Iii.! court prupedy I"uud Ihat a
grandmother and slcp-grandlilther have ,tandiug
under 23 Pa C S AS"", 5312 01' the Cu,tuJy <ud
Grandpartnh Vijitlstion A\.1 to maintain tUl llclion fur
-644 pmitll cUjtody tlnd vbitlstion \Nh"::lt.: lilt: ,hiio's
c.:u51ooiw parent. Y-Iho i3 lhe udugiltl.:r anJ ~lCp~
., ,.. "". . '"
UclU!6U1C& V1 ,II\: P41Ulo:3 UIIl'l6llJl6 III': O",IIUII., "G"" .....'U.>\..I
" , ,.,. .. '" .
Ilv~ ~v ailu\l'f i'''';1 \0,.1111..., IlJ ..i.)lI ......111 ~l,... iUHUlcl.
'" "., ...... '"' ,.
"liWl~I1iV~iI...') !lilY "'...yRI!!IIGII....'GUI...I. ,.....1 I G 0VtJ'-'
............. . '" . , ,
.,I';'b, 'V'IV"'.II~ G Ilo,;.allll~. III'" \i141 "'VVII 0.....41..........., III'"
lnlu.i1b' ~jUII~II'Vlh..1 nil"; ;)1"'jJ.r,IIlIl";I'a.I;I...1 ~;.l;IGI;VII
li!:lht~ WI: al1illll 1111':- Uiisl ~l1ult':'i order Il\NDrdil1g
....i~i(aliuH ligllh iu (..\-UI ul' lllc Illtlulal gli:Ulu 1II1H h\.'I ,
but I'c\I:I'."I": lh..: OI'Jcl' a~ il pCllains to \h~ ~Icp.
gra.\JI:llher
TII.: id..\OilUI ,:11.:1.... .lIlJ pll)(cdulal hi~ll)ry alt: as
!(lllllV.!!l, Till.: Ilhllhcl li\..:J wilh h~r J1Il11hcr anJ ~lc~~
':,ther until ,h" lIlol'lied ill 1981, .1 .g~ 23 The
lIlothe. ~lId he' h,,,I>.,,J (lh. I.lh.,) '~p~.~teJ anJ
,Iwllly Ih~lcal\cl', Il.t.: lIi(lll1~1 Jb~ll'\'l..r~d Ih.n bhrJ' "as
pH,;:glhllH Till;; IIlUI:,I,,:. (\f1:J riJ:h~r rc.:ondl~J blidly.
Th~ d,ild "as [,<,'" <In MdI'ch 7, 1985. (FS I) The
mother JnJ father ubtairH:d a Ji\'()rc~ 111 November of
1985 11\ April (,I' 19S~, th~ moth.. and Ihe .:hild
nlO..J 10 Ihe gr.ndm<lIher', and 'tep-grandt.ther's
home and r~mained Ihere unlil February of 1987
From February, 198 i, ul1lil June, 1980). the
grandpar~ms had liule c<lI\tact "';th Ihe child
On June 13, I");;';, lh.: ~nil',dmoth~1 iLllJ :otkpw
grandfalh":I' l~lcd d lldjij~lI', i"l d. ':'lJ~lvJy it..;,tiuij
C<)mm~nced by Ihe l'lher, (1':-;2) "",king grand-
parental panial ,:uslOdy ,\ cU'lody coun,elor held
hearin~s and rec<lmmended thaI Ihe grandmother and
'Iep-grandiather he ""arded panial physical custody
of the child On O"cember 3, 1990, Ihe trial coun
issued an order adopting Ihe wstody counselor's
recommendations. The mother filed exceptions 10 lh~
tindings and recommendations of Ihe custody
Coui1sc;!or and requested a he.uing.d~.ll_Q~i.Q..
In her status ":vnr'erc-n,,:t 5tat~m\!nt. the muther
challenged Ihe trial coun's order The mother argued
that 23 PolCS A Sec, 5.~ 12 'Was unconstitutiunal.
The: nllHr.cr also argued that th<: trial court crred in
applying 23 Pa ( S A Sec. 5312 to the iam of this
cale. In her discussion of legal isou.. presented, the
nlmner chaiienged' the step.grandr1uher's standing to
bring .uit The trial judge ",ucd .n order gr amillS a
I... ~:... .. I.. ..., J .. r _'. . ....~. ........, "1", "
u...o.ulua'v 1.1\0,. ......,...... ..... ..........v...." .v, I~". 111\; "Uoli
....vu.l Gl':'ll.l dWG,JcJ ill!; (..;::: :'u,::;....I^'. 2~;j
S/lIJn1t1Vtl.,-... 411U '''It,;I-'~~141IJ;".iI.I'-' ~1~.i.di.;UH Y\f;T:. ltj';':
.:hnd pt:llJill~ the' UlJtI,.VlIJl;' ui'i.lll: l;Lj~di.;UII.
On February 20, 19<)1. the Irial <"ur! rec.,;ved
t'"iJt'nc(' I.lr(,~(,III('J uy llh: grandmotlll:r, ~t~p-
gra"dl..d,.r <nJ die !Iluthe, The duld aloo I"litied
lIo'WC'~l;r, tn.;: lridi \:0Uil H:lUstd to ~durns lh.: lSSU"
lJCt!.oe c(jn~tiiUiivn<ility li1' 23 PdCSA_ See 5J 12 uUC
IV li,c. 11IVlllI;I'" ,:"';;1..1,-: IV '-Vlli~;J "";l;' ;"-4.i\C;W;'. :,;.:;
wi-iid, rq:~u;IC:.) IS p4ITJ "i~i ~;'''t, f.0t;.;t iv the An'Jn'I~1
G...II...i'; VI~ '\:\IlI.)j;~Q.I'li" 1,);" '-Vo,:tli'.Ul;vfi.u QIUt....~ vh
G .1IGIVI... 'UI"; ~:... ""'VltJl~ u; ~I~;II~ ;,......11 ..VII...... Aa"~-.~
., ... , .,"
III"" ....IV.).... VI "'''IU\oI'~, Hid' .)GIII... .....el}, u.~ 11181 '....n.HI
.... '.. .,. "",., ._. ~ ., .. . , ,. ,R ,,~ ,
.....~J~JI'!iIIl... .'.....H I U....Ilol-Il..11! \,..u. I ~~v I'V ",ldUII ~V VI'/6I1IGI U :" '-'V~l. ""VIII"
,...
....
u25 ~:J (J.t~. .J~5 POI Super l~~. IIdl" Di\l'llhiu, d\l StipeI' I'Ni,
detcnninc:d that buth the: gralldll111th~r illuJ ~ICp'
grandfather had !Itlll1Jintl pur~LJlltlt to 23 Pit (' S A
Sec. 5312 nnd is!rIucd an ord~r grnntillH Ihe111 p.l!"ti,,1
cu.tody. This lil11e1) appe41Il111m,ed
On ~Ippl:al, thl: mother rabc~ the tollov.il1lo( is~ut:~
t(>r our n~\iew
\ WIIETIIER 23 ra C S Scc 51 12 \'IOLMES
filE FOl;RTEE:\T11 A\lEN[)ME~aS [,icl
PROTEClIO;o.i Or PARE:" 1',\1. RlCilllS AS II
INTRUDES I:"TO nlE PIWTHTED AIU;A
OF TIlE I'A\IILY \VITIIOI'T A SIlO\\'H\G OF
A "CO\lPFI.I.I;o.ic; STAn' INTFRFST"
II WIIETHER TilE "IlES r INTEREST Or
THE CHILD" STANDARD \ll'ST BE
APPLIED WITIIIN CO:\STITUTIONAL
CONFINES
11\ WHETIIER 23 P. c.S Sec. ~.112
C:\CONSTlTCTIONALLY SHIFTS TIlE
DCROEN OF rROOF TO TIlE DEFENDANT
IV. WHETHER 23 Pa C S See 5312
VIOLA TES THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF TIlE FOCRTEENTH
AMENDMENT A:\D DISCRIMINATES '64~
AGAINST SINGLE, DIVORCED PARENTS.
Mother', Brief at 0
At the out~et. we mu~t detemline whether we are
compelled to outrighlly deny the mother'. appeal due
to her direct di,obedienc. of the trial (oun'. order
instructing her to deliver the child for visitolion to Ihe
ll'andmother and slep.142S Pa Super 3bOI
grandfather. The mother's direct di.nbedience of Ihe
trial coun's order f,'rced the grandmother and 'Iep-
grandrather to in.titule contempt proceedings When
the mother failed to appear al the contempt hearing,
the trial court was compelled 10 issue a bench worrant
for her amst which is still out'tanding at this lime
[J]!2](3J An order issued by a coun "ith
juri.Jiction over the .ubject mailer and Ihc person
mu.t be obeyed by the parties until it is re,er<ed by
orderly and proper proceeding! Philadelphia M T
Assn, v. International Long A..n, 413 Pa 43,
49-50, 308 A 2d 98. 102 (1973), f1ulchison by
Hutehison v. Luddy, 417 Pa Super. 93. 115. 61 I A 2d
1280, 1292 (1992) Generally, where the
disobedience of a court order i. a l1agralll one and
where the appellant ha.~ been held in contempt or
PlI~e 4
~1\l,'11 hll opporllltllty to prc~l'lIt an t:,~u:,e fur the
di....lhl-Ji...nn: alld the 1"l.:U~C' i:-. nul acceptable. tht'11 a
<Il'niill of un iippcltl ~h(lllIJ fullow l'ullllllol1v.t'allh ex
lei [leemer v Ilccmer, ,00 ril.Super 10.1, 107, 19B
A 2d .17\ .11I\1')u2) IIll",e,cr, Ih. Superior Cuun
ilS not cwnpdh..'d to ~lJa l'i~1unf~ 'luu')h an lip peal v. hen
the appdlunt i~ in corllcmpt ot the trial ,uur!'!! order it
II dj!lcus~illn of the lIlerits of the Cil~e "ould prU\ide
rdilkation to both hcm:h i1lld bar ralcl11i v Falemi,
371PaSupcr IOI.IU7,.137A1d8.IO,843(19S8)
['li[~ I In,lanrly. as a threshold ,tel'. we must
n.'Sl)I\'~ th~ subj('(t l1latt~r jurisJktil)11 isSUl~ vfwhctlh.'r
the grandrnllthr;r i1nd !:itcp"Hrnndt1uhcr had sfilnding to
a5~ert a <;ausc.: uf "l;'tic.,l11 undc.:r 21 Pn (' S:\ Sec, 5.1 12
against thl'ir own d':llIghler or slep~daughter before
\\1: may prol.:Ccd to the Ilwrits ('If the mother's appeal
The resolution of this issue has signiticant importance
to both bench and bar. It i~ of particular imponance,
in light of Ihc I:,ct that all prior discussions of ,imilar
issue!l by this COUll bave maintained that an action
~iJTlnot be asserted by a grandparent again~t his or her
own ,on or daughler, ~~~ Herron v Scilak. 32 I
Pa Super, 4UC1, 4uS A 2d 803 (1983) (grandparents
lack 'tanding where both parcnls are present and
objecl to ,isilatiol1); Gradwell v Strau"er, 416
Pa Super 118. 0 lOA 2d 999 (1992) (maintaining that
Ihe ,Ialurury r;ght, cr.al.d under 23 PaC SA Sec.
531 I through ~) 13 provide a 1425 PaSuper 3611
means for grandparents or great-grandparents, on the
nlm-cu~todial side, 10 guard against potential
ewangem.nI) Thus. "e will pemlit the appeal ru
proceed despi.e the mol her's contemptuous
disobedience of Ihe I,;al COUI"S February 20, 199 I
order and lirst Cllnsider whether the trial Cllurt had
subject mailer jurisdiction 10 entertain the
grandmolher's and step-grandfather'. petition for
visilalion and/or panial cuslody. (F:-:3)
As a general maller, the 4ue,tion of 51anding i.
diSlingui.hable from that of .ubject mailer
juri!diction lIo",tver, under some statutes, the issue
of "anding becom.. imerwoven with that of .ubject
mailer jurisdiction When a ,tatute creating a cause
of aClion includes the designarion of who may sue,
thtn 'tanding hecome. a juri.dictional P.tlt4ui.ile lu
an action ~'.,,'.lL Sutton v. Miller, 405 Pa Super.
213, 222-23. 192 A 2d 83, 87.88 (1991) (",here
>laMe creating cause of action specifies that only a
"plainlitf in po"e"ion" may 'ue to compel an adve"e
pany to curnmence an action of ej.ctment, plaintitl's
po"e"ion of propeny become. juri.Jictional
prerequisite 10 bringing acrion)_~ M...son v,
McElhinn~y, 370 Pa 622, 88 A2d 747 (1952), 3
Copyrighr 0 We'l Publi,hing Co 1996 No claim to originalll S Go,t ",orb
~ .
u25 ,\ 2J.,.;; ,I;:, p" SUP"I ;:':',Iidl, lJi'e"ltiu, Ii'.. :i"I'"' 1';'1I)
;.
I'.~e :0;
I'.. StJ l'lrJl.. :i..." i4 II (,,~tl"'ll IS d.llul... LIl,;'dll,'~ lJ
~.UK 0(' ttl.iiull, ll.\" iJ"'l !lUll ~'i ~~l MIII:'t ~11 Jt.::,i~Jhl("d
IU~ tilt ullly V"'l-'t'1 plllilltlll~)
"646 lull71 rile ,1.lule iu liI~ ""tanl ca,", 21
P..C S ,\ Scc '.1\2 (i1e,eiJllllle, "(j,aJldp.,em,
Vi,"'aliul\ "\:t"), hllth l,,;ICilt(~ II I.au:'!l: llf ut.:lllJll .uut
dt::,igllll.IC~ lilt.: pulli....~ \1\-110 IIIIIY hlill~ ~uit ulldcr il~
pro\biul1s. TII Icadlll~ the hmguagc lit' the blaluh,', "I.:
",'cp ill llIind tilt.: hi.t~k '....IICI of ~litllltor y l.:llll~lluc,;tilln
~hkh r~411i1l.''' it (llUlI hJ l.:uJ\l\lruc the \/wunb "If it
btatulc IU.'\.:l/uJing III tlld, r1ain meaning I Pil C S A
Si,."\,':, jl)()3(11). (011111I011"1:01111" Sllmlc)', .W~ I'd
326. :ns, 446 :\:J ~'lU, SS7 (I')i)::). l.iIClllijll') 1.'uIlJ
IrI~UlaJll.:C Cu .. ~dtiull",idc: Mutual IIlMilIUu.:C l'u.
317 P.Sul'e, 4"7, :;02.4(>.1 Acd 431. 434 (1983)
Wht:1I t1u: \frOI d:'l uJ' il ~tl.ltulc ille lluaJllulguuu~. the)
alt.: 1I11!. tu tH: ui~1 cgiJllJcd UIIJCI du: VI Ch:.\L vi'
pur ~lJillg the 142) Pa SUp4:r 3621 ~pirit vf the !Statule
I PaT S A Sec 1921(.; r;eeping lilese p"ndpk, in
mimI, Yl'C \o\llllluw 1I:\lic", thli: (halluVIiIl.:llb Vbilaliuu
Act, whkh l:umaim. the: fulluwing pcnincm lanJ:;uagc
In all pruc.:ccrJings for db~ulllliun. ~ub~c41.1cnl 10
the c.:ul11H1cm:cmcnL of the pru.\:ccuing and
l.:ontinuing lhclcal\cr ur "hen parcnh hay!: been
~cplirittcd fur ~ix IIIUIILh, ul' mUIt:, the c.:uurt may.
~IlJ\l!P!iJ;ation ot'lh~_~lImJL\!U\f~llil.l1.;rn:JlL\!j'jj
,,~ grallt rCli!)olUwlc ptuti.l!.l cu,touy. ....isitatiun
rights, or uUlh, Iu lh. ulllnalri.d chilJ i1' il lind,
that .bilalion righi, ur pa'lial cu,ludy, ur bolh,
",owd be in the b.,t imc..,t ut' the child and
",uu.lu nut illh...r1i:rc 'With the pau:nt.dilJ
rc4tiumhip. The CUUll ,hall l:un!liJcr the amuunt
of J..X:I:n.I[lal \,;UlIliU.:l Lclv..xll the PiilClIl, Vf
granupalenl' ut' the party and Ihe child priur 10
lh. application.
23 Pa C SA Sec, 3312
PU."';OUS decisions of this ~ourt interpreting t.he
Grandparenu Visitation ACI "ould indicate ostensibly
Ihat unly Ih. patenl' or lheJ.l.\lD:s~QI\iil parent have
'Ianding to bring ,uit for visilation or paniaJ custody
WIU-=I lite OlaIJU!Jd.1t:llt~ \,i)llaIIUII Al.:l li!JvlI du)t:t
Inspt:&;:tion. how"vt:l. lht:~ \";i1~t:~ alt: 1l::<uJiiy
UilILillH-ui"iliiUit: iiU1l1 lilt: 11I:t(iilll )llUiiLivlI ill Ht:IlUII
v. Scizak.. ,upra. grandpar.nts tiled an a"'1ion seekJOg
yisll..Liun ",ilh lh.1I !!lalldchild under the pro.isions at'
....'lion 5312 I'hi. coun opined thatlhe Grandparent
Visitation Act gives gralldparenls a right to !\Uk
pIIl1ial cU'lucJy or yisltation JO ,ituatioll$ in ",hich
Ul1!: pa,em "'., unable 10 ..elhlll her parent. had
II ...I III I II,.I.: ILl ~ld lu ~1IlJ\'" lit'>:!' ~I u/lJt.:hihJ l'lit:
~tlh;Il""It:II\.~ vy lIt\: ulud ltlt II~ ...tu~1l1':t Jnbiuu
"1Idh\:1 Ill..: i,.,HrlJ ~,;.'ldJ ~r;"; ill;': glo1I1J}Jd..t'tll \)1
Ilotl ",on Ju~IIII~U uy lite' Itt/l'tt'fH.:C' of thal piJl&:ul,
will) i1' ~hc ",Cft: plt::'lC'1I1. l.:vuld b~~UIt: U\:\:C~:i vI'
lhe child 10 lhc g,andpwenl
IklllHl y Scuak. 3211'. Super al470, 4u8 A.2d
III 80' Ahhuugh lhb slatelll.nl sccmlngly limits
!rIlalloillg 10 lhc palclll~ 01' lire IIU1H:UMl.ldial parcnt,
lhe l'a~ls ill IICrllItl alc Jlsllnguishabt..: tiorn tho~c III
111e (J1l.~ClIl 'i1~C
142~ p" Sul'"' 3u31 l-i"I, Ihe g' .nddlild ill
HtlfUll rl.:!)idcd with bl;lth parcnl!\, ~ho v,cre..n\!.l
...Ji"ull.:cU 01 ill\'llht.:u in dis!'Jolutlofl ploccedillgs, a
pi clI:4ui~iH: or IIIdillla;llill~ all itl:Lioll UUUt.:1 tile !J1i1iu
languag.e vi' 23 Pa C S A Sc..:, ;,312 Kdl'>:liiiiJlg the
Icyuirclllcllh oi' LlIl: (iliiIlUVdICIII:i Vi:illaliull At,,;l. we
~lith:,lJ
'l he f At.:\ I VI uviucs "i~ilaliull I igllb 1u
grandpalcnl~ upun a tinding by the (;OUlt that
vi!lllation v.ould be in the bC!!it irrtcrc!lts of the
dlild I hc ,\<1 p,,,,id.s lhis righl ,,"ly in Ihr.e
dr(,;um!ltalll.:c~ (I) \\olu:n a part.:lIl is d~ea~cJ.
(2)_.wl1~L~i!!~I!!S'1J1~!Ji~Jj..iLill.wjy_0;9. and (3)
"hell lhe child has ,.sided "ilh lh. ;;r,"dpalenls
IVI a pcJivJ vr 12 IIlonlhtt lJIIIIOI\:'.
HellUII y SelL.k, 1211'. Super al469, 468 A2d
., 805 Acco,dingly. "" held Ihal Ihe grandparellls
Ili:Hl lIot ~lalcd a i;;ao~d uf 81.:1IUll Upoll whkh relitf
cuuld ue glallted
[A]ppellanl> ill II Ie inSlall' appeal ",uuld h.,. lhe
court dlr~t part:n~s. both of ~hum hav..: I,;hu!)li:n
lIot tu havt.: I.Ilt:ir dlildrCII "i~it lhe grandparents,
Iv !JCllllll )u\:h ...;~!LaliulJ,-.I:iy1himUl~li1J.1.1.Q...~
Lm:J.siiJI!)!.~~t_:;l,L,,-h_~!,-jJ1JMi~the cuuill
inLQJ~!))j))' iit.,,"
Id. at 470, 463 A Zd at 305 (emphasis added)
I"he,elore, because (I) both parent' "'."e ..Ii,.. (2)
the parents were not involved in dissolution
1J1~li:t;::Jill~:t. dUU (3; dtt: l:hiiLl Itli3 IIU~ It::iiul:u ",id.
dll: ~ldJIJlJatt.:lIl!rt. I'vr mm!: lhan oue ).:ar, lhe plain
language of the Slalute dearl~ and unal1lbiguou.ly
.647 precluded Ihe aClion 'thus. any discossion in
Ilerron at' the stalute'. intent ur spiJil ".., pu, ely
dicta
t.ik~i.., our recent holdio!l in GradweU v.
Suaus>eT, supra. fa". to re5(1lye Ihe que!/tion bclore
Copyrighl () We.t i'uhli.hinS Co 19')b No claim to orisinallJ S Gov!. work.
~ ~
".
625 A 2.1' "41, ,125 I'. Sup.' .155, 1Ii11 v lJi,e.-hill, (I'll Super 1')"1)
"OKe 6
u) tll lhal ~a~l:, lllc llli.lll.:ll1ill ~, i.IlllJpiJl clll~ l\uuglil
h:gal CU..,tllUY of lhdr t4l1ull.khild ami tJlllught ~ll
ulII,lI:1 lilt;; )111111<11 lJ1lJ....i~iull:, ur 23 1-';1 C ~.; A Sl'1",:
5313. (f"N4) AlltH: thllc the a~liun \lwH.!t \:ll/IIIIlCIlt.:CU,
1425 I'a Supe' J641 llie child le,idcd ,,,,h h.,
palernal g1llOdlather, I.uther Srrau"er (I.u.e),
pUJ)uanllo a lClllpUIiIl)' 1.\lUII UIlJcI Iluv'I:\oCI, h:gal
lo.:U)tvuy IClllain~d v.ith Iiel pUfCllh. The palcnh HIed
bO l1n~\\I.:( IiIllIne\.\' matter ICljUCl\lillg l)(Jlh legal ami
physical clIstndy ThJ\lughllut the durali,,,, or Ihe
DClion. the pan:ms ""I.:I c not ul\.un.:cd lIT ill,,01\ l".'d II)
dj~sullllioll pw,ccJillgs Atlcr a h~r1ng, the trial
I;uurt V3t.:UtcU its prim tcmplH&iI)' order and cntcl cd a
new Older te"'pOlarrly tran,ti:rring legal and phYSical
custody uf the child to her pa,ems Sub"'4uently, the
malemal grandparents and Lukc tiled a mot,on
re4uesting that "testimllny bc taken and thai the
agency rendering tillTnly counselmg to the paille'
report unlhe parcnlS' ,tatu:;." Id 41b P. Supcr at
122,610 A2d at 1001. "ollm''''g a conlcrence, the
tria.J court granted the partnts' motion to di~l1lis~ the
proceedmg"
130lh the matemal grandparent> and Luke
appeal cd the Irial court's ",der C"onfu,mg the
requirement) to maintain an actiun lur cusludy ~lth
thus!: lur partial \obitatiun or partial cu)tI.Jdy. Luke
iilgUt:d lhaL IJt: hau lJ"t:Il.:UIIIC lilt: llalUI~1 palcllb'
prima lacie right IU_,lA>t.Q~}: becau,e, pursuant to 23
Pa.CS.A, Sec. 5313, he resided with the chIld lor
cluse to t",u years. a prt:rc4uisitt: lur maintaining a.n
action under Sec. 5313 Inilially. we re"e",ed lh.
"intent" ur the Urandparent' Vi,itatiun Act by 'tatlOg
[T Jh. 'talutory right> created under ,ectiUI1[' )
53 I 1-5313 pru'lde a mean, lor grandparents or
great-grandpar.nt' un the non-custodIal side lu
guard again.'t putenliale,lrangement that mlghl
m.:cur a1\t'r on~ parent di~s, ur at\~r thl;' parcnts
separate or Ji\oOTl;t: and l;ustody llf the child is
wilh one parent.
Urad well , Strauss.r, 416 I'a Sup.r at 128, 610
A.2d at 1004, Huwever, we declined to address
",hether Luke met the stalutory requirements to seek
relief under its provisions, In this regard, We Slaled
(425 Pa.Super. 3b51" he [Gralldparellls VJSlIatlOn
Acti. huwe,er, speaks to partial custody or
~i~iwiQn. It dots not provide a right of actioll lor
custody. We lind, ;1"lferOre, that seclion ~313 is
1I0t iilJlJlit.:al;lt: Iv lilt: matter I>t:(()fe us, rhe
complaint, lhou~h captioned "Complaml for
vi.ilatiol~" sought physical alld legal custody ill
llll.: plit)CI 101 Iclu:r Ihe trial Judge di!lpmt'd of
1I1i", 11Itllll'1 II!\ Ill:U!'IIUu) Ji"'J.lulc. unJ \.,)II~I.~ueIJU)
1In.: uppdlulIl!'l hii\C argued tht cu~e un lIppc:alll~
bud I
Id (emflh",j. ill ungi"aJ) III I'ghl ,,1' lhe
IlJlt'~t.liTlg, v.~ Ildc.1 llliJl the: lrial (uurt properly
concluded lllal tile grl:illupiile:lIl) luuJ nu bllUUJillg lu
llt:C"'_~lt:)J.VtJ~ ul' the thih.J, am.! aniJJllt'd th\: mder uf
Ihe Uiiil (....un Ih;<CliU!'IC we: did 1I0llt::iul\lc the (:..!)ues
pIClll.11!CU umlcl lilt.: (,jliindpatcnts VI~llation ,I\,t in
l;rndv..cll. HUI Jillt.:u!'Ibi"n ur lh~ pUI'pObC Itn~ bpi fit \l('
the Ad wall purely dicta and has Ilu btalin~ llll lht:
maller pll,;'!lclltly !JellHc us
l8] Our ,e"ew ut' Ih. language ot' 23 I'a C S A
SCl.: 5312 l.;OIl\'lIlCCS U!> Ihd! it IS bOlh ...-Icm and
llnaJllbigunus Ihc':~~JJ\IV~JJj~: or a c1uld whus.
parents ale divorced or invulvcd in diss~llutiulI
proccedings may 1I1ailllain an a..:tion lor partial
visitalion or pall,"1 custody Il1e legISlature did nol
Imut stallding to Il1e pa' clltS ot' only tlte non-custodial
parent, Hccausc \\oc are nUlllc~ lo disregard the plain
language of the stalute in order to pursue its Spirit, we
c.oncludc lhatlhe ~randlllother in the inSlalll case has
standll\g to pursue t\'648 Vlsitallon or panial cUSlody
und~r ~t:ction 53 12, t-to"e\'~r, th~ unambiguous
\.\oul\h vI' lilt: ~lal.ull;;:' \o\olail,,;h )lalt:: "UjJUIl ap)Jlil.:ation of
the parent or g,andpa! enl of a pa!'ly" preclude Ihe
mother's step"lather. the ch,ld's S1ep"grandfather, Irom
asserting a cause of action for visitation and/or pallial
custody 111 ~ol1juncllon Wllh the child's natural
!;randmuther and he musl be di,mJSscd as a party to
this lawSlJI!~uharah's Estale 49 l'a.C C 64'1, 6~
I'LJ. 757 (1920) (where 'tep-children are of the
blood of the husband. who had no eslate to distnbule,
they do lIot cOllie witlun the class of ne.-l of kill to the
Wlt~ and would not be elllltl~c1 to any share in the
dimlbutlon "I' her eSla'e), In Ie blate ur Humphrey,
2~4 f Supp, 33 (1%6), reversed sub nQllL
Humphrey v. '[<,))>911 3H4 f 2d 987142~ Pa.Super.
3(6) (OCC" 1'1(6) (under IJIS1IIct ut' Culumbia
~tatul~ abuli:lohin~ l.,;umrnul,~law distinction betWet:I'\
kindred uf ",hule and half blood, a 'tep"chtld may
inht::rit tTum a ~h.,,-paftmt v;hu dit::s inte~tate); Estatt;
ur Davis. 107 Cal App 3d 93, 165 CaLRplr 543
(1930) (whe,e decedent waS survived by issoe, hi.
unadopled 'Iep-children were not emilled to share in
his imestate estale). In re O'Connor's Wd~ 140 Mioc.
757. 251 NY S 686 (1931) (daughter of testatrix's
deceased >lep-son held nul "inlerested" in estale,
hence: Ilut "nf:l,;c:5sary" UI' "plUpr:1 party" ill lJllJLdlcs uf
will).
Copyright C We'll'ublishing Cu. 1996 Nu claim 10 original U S {jOV! work..
J*o
....
()2~ l\ 2~ ("Ii, 42j I'a S'Jpe, .I~j, Hill v Di,ecdll", (1'0 Supe' 19'13)
Ncxl, V.c \""111 pl\.H.:ct.:d ILl l.:1l1l~1l1cl' Ih~ IoUI' I~SUl.'S
,aised oy lhe: lIloth...r 'luc3IjOllill~ ille ((IIl!llitutiUIli1lu)'
ut' 23 I'a C S A Sec. S312 rllc1'Ic lssm:s \~Cll' lil'!'.l
laillt:o in tile C,\ccptiolls ~h..: Iil~d Oil DCCCllIb",..- I I.
~990 lu lilt: IC\,;U1IJ1IIt'IlJ..tl;UI13 lJi' lll~ I,,;U~I"HJ)
(lJumdul ill cUlljullction with her I\:l.{ucsl 1~J1' a
h':3Iillg. cJ&:__ .Il!-)~l) bcllm: the trial (llUII UplJl)
ClllISidcl'atil}ll 0(' the lIIuther's c.\(l'ptlUIlS. the It ial
cuul't dlrto'deo that a slatus conlercllcc be hldd llll
JUIIU"!')' 4. 1991, Ille bsuc uf the CUlIstllutiollUlllY llf
2.J l'U (' S A Sl'C ~.)12 \\ij,~ UIlCc a~iJilllaiscu by the
lIJothel' ill hel' !'Ilatus (l)lIk/ell":c stall.'lIIcnl IHcd wllh
tlu: trial ClIull 011 Jl.IlIUi.lI)' 4, 1991 Hov.c\cl'. the
IC..:.oI\J illdjeuh:s tllitl Ihe 1I10tlh:1 11~\o~r Ii led
f'a Rei.... p 2)5 Iluti!.;c \'willi lhe AHullley (itllt'ljJl\
Olli\.t: alcllillg it 10 Ihc ra~l that !I1~ llltttlldt.~ to
lju-:slioll the clJll:)litutiunality of 23 Pa C S A SCl.,;
5312 01 ,he healing ~~__"<l1I0 tk"aus< uf Ihe
molhel'~ fallun: II.> comply ""ilh Pa R Civ p, 235,
(I'N~) Ihe 11i"1 ~uUlI ,tllIsed 142~ l'a SUjJ<:' 3611tu
add":~!t lIlt: tIluttH':I'!t COIlSlllutiollill ~halfcllgt:s to 23
l'aCSA S.c ~312
1911lU) An appdlate coull "ill nul ~"I"id<r a
\:hall~lIgc Iv the: ~ollsliluliollality of a ~tatutt: if tile
i~su~ has not bt:l.'1I raist.:d in lht ~oUlt lx:low or 11' 110
notice has been given 10 the Attorney General. In ,<
AdlJpliun ,,1' ChriSlopher 1', 4~U l'a 7<1, 3~<I A 2d 94
(1<I7~) The pruper melhod to attack lhe
l.:ull)liluliulICsJily ut' a ~ialult' ill a t.;i"i1l,,;a3t' i) ill plt'dU
lht b~ut and gi"t' Ilutil:t' to tlte AtlOlm:y ut:m:ral a~
requi,ed by l'a R CIV I'. 23~. 1J,<ra v, Soulhea.slem
I'ennsylvania lransp. AUlhonty, 231 I'a Super ~UM,
331 A 2d 705 (I <174) I he Ida! CUUII'S refusal 10
address a C;;OnstllutlOnal issue is proper ",here lht:l'e is
no indication in tht It:CUld of \:olllplil:l.llce \\-JllI
I'a R.C" 1'. 235 requiring Jlulke lu the Attumey
GeneraJ where the llligar. raises the ISSUt: of the
constitutkJllalily of a stalult: Hummer v, i::h.li:uU vI
School Ui,eclu". 101I'aC",,,llh. 16, 1M, 515 A cd
359, 361 (19~6) If Ihe liligalll raising Ihe
con!ltitutionallty of a statute rails to nOlll).' the
Allomey ven<ral pursuant Iu PaR Civ 1'. 235 and
l'aRAI' 521. Ihe claim i5 barrcd ..KO:Vj1J.!'_.'LXajU1H!!!
Orillin~ Co, *649, 532 l'a 304, 312.314, 6 15 A 2d
1298, 1303 (1992). Fau't II. Me"lTIger, 345
Pa.Super. 155, 159,49'/ A2d 1351,1.153 (1985)
Sn..l!b.<.! Pel it ion "I' Cily of Clalrlon. 139 Pa ('mwlth
354,357,590 A 2d 838. M40 (1991 ),_~'l!Dlll:lutler v
Rolling flill f1o'pila!. 3M2 l'a.Super. 330. 555 A cd
205 (l989kll!M;l!YLd.'lli~, 522 I'a 623, 564 A 2d
9 I 5 (1989).
[lljlnstantly, the mOlher initially lailed to appd5e
I'n~e 7
the :\tlOllll.')' (jcllclal's Ollkr. pUlsuant 10 PaJl CiyP.
23~ "I' hel plannl-dlhall<nges Iu ,he cunsliluliunw'ly
uf 23 I'a (' S A See 5312. 1irsl upon the "hng uf her
C\t.;clHiolls lu the cuslody c.:UUnscllll'S
Ic",ulllnlcIlJdlllHI~ iJuJ Illen lJt::rulc lht;: 'UllIllltll~tlllt:llt
"I' the hea,ing de 1"1-'<1 un I'ebrua,y lO, IWI.
TI\l:l'ct~'n~. the trilll Cl)urt plUpt:r1y rcfusc\1 10 UtJUICSS
Ih~s~ iJl1plUpclly I ~ist,-d \:ulI:!llituliolll1l dailll~.. . ~.r.::~
Keisennan v Springlicld Twp , '19 Munlg 312 (1'175)
lIhc queslion of tile UllIstituliulIUlity ut' it ~ljJluh: may
nul be delenlllned unle" p"'pcr 10125 I'a Supc, 3681
notic\: IS ~u\-cn to lh~ ulllllney gcm:rsl), Spl't.'1.'C v
Lebanon Pa,k"'g Auth",ity, 6~ I'a D & (,2d 408
(I <174) (an ad uf the (jencral A...",bly uughl ne'er
be piltcu III l..:ulI1bat with the cunstitutiun u/llc~s
mUllltc~tly 1It."CCtI.,UI)' Slid ull pfl}(\.'11urlil stt:p!S theretu
pruperly taken)
[12J On appeal, lhe mUlher has allempled Iu
I~sutlt;'('l hCI 1J1vt:t:tJulally liow\..J conslitutional
chall<nges I" 2,\ I'a C S A Sec. 5312 by belaledly
giving ll11li('c 10 tire Attortlcy (;en~ral's Ollice
pursuanlto I'a R A I' 52 I (I'f'.;6) alle( Ihe lnal court
ICfU3t'd (u addll:s:'l her cunstitutional challe::ngt:s to the
MlIlutc. I hi~ we cannot pt:mul
This is not a case where the constitutional
challenges lu Ihc "alute amse ill the middle uf the
tnal and Ihe AlIoJlley veneral's Ollice was prumplly
lI11lilit:u ur llle: !';ulI!lliluliullal dlaHt:ugt') tu HIt: ~luluh:
upun Ihe liling or the appeal pUl,uanl lu l'a.R A 1'.
521._.~~e.~:uJllmq1J",!;,~IJJH~;Lr.c;j. Slein v Stei,~ 4M7
I'a I. 406 A 2d 13M 1 (I Y19) (plurahty), DranLu v.
WilHerha!ler, 3<1~ I'a Super. 578, ~77 A 2d 134<1
(I <190) Hel e, lhe mother initially pled her pla'Uled
f..ha1h:ugt:!l. to tht:: Loo!)titulionahty of 23 1'1It:.SA.
Sec. ~3 12 in both her excepliuns lu Ihe cusludy
counselor's n:~oll1lllcndations and ill her status
l.:ullh~'It:lIl,.t: 31 1:11 <<:11 1t:IIL lu lilt: tlial ~uUJl 1.J~1UH: lILt:
ht'(llillg,YJ:..Jl,l.J.~.lJ, t\t:Curuillgly, the: Jllulllt:l hay ample:
opporlunily IU comply "ilh l'aRCivl', 235 and alert
the Anorncy (iC:lltlral's Unice to her planned
conslituliunal challenge, belore Ihe helll'Ul!!._<k..lli>.Yll
occurred Thus. Ihe ",()lher's lailu, e lU comply ",ith
l'a.RCiv.l'. 235 wJ!1 not be excused by a belaled
nOlice liling under I'a. R App R 521 (a), and we are
con'trained 10 lind her constitulional challenges 10 23
I'a C S A Se~ 5312 waIved on appeal...__~
W~!1O.~""""'~ .(t"!~_Asu'-Y"),!QIl!JJ.JlLMillili11'lli1 I
425 I'a Super .16')1 406 I'a 413, 17'1 A 2d 649
(1%2) (a 4ue>liun nul properly ,aised in the court
will not be ~un5idered on appeal e'en Ihuugh lhe
question to bc rai~ed invulves a cunslitutiorW issue)
See also Curab, v. Curti5 I'ubli.hing Co. 437 I'a 143,
Copyrighl '" Wesll'ubli,hing Cu I <1<16 No claim 10 original U S vov!. work..
....
l>251C "irMl, .12~ l'iI SlIp<r J~\ 11111 v ll"<cchio, (I'll Supcr IY<JJ)
~
I'age 8
21>2 ,\ 2.1 ()()5 11'1/0), Ilrlln""i,k COIp v Ke~
l:.lIle,pl".' Inc. .lJll'a I~, 2H A2d l>~M (I%~)
(4ue'lion, "I.sed hy appellanl "hkh ".re nul
ploperly lai,ed ill Ihe COlli I below ",.11 nol b.
comid..ed (In appcal)
H"5, l'a.R CJV I', 235. NOli,e 10 Allum.y ueneral
l',)J)slilulionahly of Slalule
Ulde' alli'JIled nl part and ,e,ers.d III parI.
~NI. Ihetather 1.1I1'.lIl1sylvania and ,eturned 10 hi,
Iilllllly ill Nevada
III allY p"."e.d"'g JIl . cuurt subje,tto Ihese rule,
in "hich an ACl 01' Ass<mbly ,. alleged 10 be
un,onslllulional and the COJllmon"eahh IS 1101 a
parly, Ihe pal1Y lalsing Ihe 4uestion of
consl.lulionalily shall plomplly give nulice Ih.reof
by r.glsler.d Ina.l 10 the Allomey UelleraJ of
l'elUlsylvanialogelher Wllh a copy oflhe pleading
or oth.I' pOlliulI 01' Ihe ..,ord la'''ng Ihe issue
alld shall Iile pm,'f of Ihe gi'lJ1g of the nollcc,
I he AIIOIney U.ne, al may ",Iervene as a pan~ 01'
may be hea,d Wllhuul Ihe necesslly 01'
inh~r\tlllion. rhc cuurt in its discretion may slay
the procv",dings pending the g"ing of the noli,e
and a reasonable opportunity 10 the Anorney
General 10 respund Iherelo, If Ihe circumstances
of the CUe re4uire Ihe court may proceed withoul
prior nOlice in ",hich event nOlice .hall be given
"" soun as po"ibr., ur Ihe cuurt lIUly prucaod
without wa'ting acllun by Ihe Allomey lieneral in
response to a notice.
lla..d UP'lII tile loregoJllg analySis, Ihe I"al
COUll'. order awaldlJ1g pal.t,al custody and VISllallnn
rights 10 Ihe ll,andlJ1other is alllJ1ned, 11O\\.v.r, 1l1e
111.1 coun's <lIdel' ii' II penaill' 10 Ih. slep-grandlillher
is reversed a' Ihe >tep-grandfather lackeJ standin!!
ullder 23 I'a l' S A Sec. 5.112 Iu be a pany 10 1111'
lawsuil
~N2, UII June 2l>, I<)ij\ Ihe lillher liled a cumplaint
..eking parlJaI 'uslody or vlSllallon UII AlIgust I l>,
1<)85, Il1e Irial cOlllI enlelcd all order a",ard,ng Ihe
father panial cU'lOdy, The father reside. in Las
Vtgas. Nt'vaJa Hi) I.:u:'lllJdy lights ale Ih)1 in
dispute
~N3, II " "ell-.clllea Ihat lh. queslion of subjed
matler jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any
P3l1y, ('I' by ,he (Uurl_}uJLI>llmlL SO) ndl v
Barndt, 397I'a.Supcr, 321, 325, ~80 A 2d 120,322
(1990),
NOle: By definition Rure 76, registered mail
include. certltied mail
Amended March I I, 1991, effective July I, 1991.
FN4. Section ~313 provides.
~Nb, l'a.R A 1'. 521(a), NOllce 10 AUorney lieneral
of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statule,
If an unl1lalJ;cd ,hlid has residtd "',Ih his
!lI'andparent5 or grC3l-!lI'andpaI'enu ror a p.:riod
or II'.". IllUlllh. or 1ll00e and is .uu.equelllly
rcmov'cd from thc home by hi. parent>, the
grandparents or great-gr1l1dparents may petition
the!' ('(lllrt for An ordC'r gnmtin,g thtm rf!'A'o,,~blt'
partial cUSlody or vi.italion ri!lhu, or both. to the
child. The couJ1 .hall ,Ilrant the petition if it find.
thJlt visitillion ri!lhts would ~e in the best interest
of Ih. child and ",ould not inlerfere ",ilh Ihe
parent-child relalion.hip.
.649_ 23 Pal'S A. Sec. 5313,
la) Notice [t .hall be the duty of a party who
draw'\ in queMion the cnn'\tirutiona'ity of any
statute in any matter in an appellate court to
which the Commonwealth or anv officer thereor,
acting in hi. official capacity, is not a pArty. upon
the filing of the record, or as .oon thereafter as
tbe question i. rai.ed in the appellate COUJ1, 10
give imme<liale node. in writing to the Atlomcy
ueileral of I'enll.yl\'allla of Ihe eXIStence of lhe
que.llon; together with a copy of th. pleading.
or olh.r pon,oll of the record raISing the issue,
and 10 lile proof of service of .uch nollce,
l:opyrigbl (;I Welt l'ubli.hinal:o. 1<)<)1> No claim 10 original U.S. liovl. works.
"IP '0
l-S:E
.. _ u iU
o .51l=l
~.. 0.
"8 0 0"0
= (,j =
~"O= ~
g,g.. ..
_~"'O " .a 1I
<'l t: '"
.... "tI -
i fi g ~ ,g ~ C
t:l.. u j;; ~ :z
"0 a U ,5 ~ i
'""_ CJ ::.:
Q .... ~ u p.. ~
:1 ii -5 il' 'iJ -
~
fa] . 6 ~ ~ 'il ~
- u
'C ... .e- e.J -::: U <Il iii
... ~ :s -- ... :l
CoVi_o ; a
o cll- .... ""
,- li 0 .. e ri
- .... 0- ~.
!l .. ;; tl 'C: ~ '" .,
- ::J
'Vi ~ U ~ 0. . 1: - .:
.- c ~ c 0 Q d .,
> ,- 8 :9 Z 1;; Z r:-~:~
.... ... "a .... i ::
~]:-=--5 ri _1"'1"':'J
..e ..en " ';::-{d~
... Y c U N ~ azo
'" ... ;: ~.c ....l -l"
,~ "0 .1.:! "'1:1
"'Q..cu""- c.: :"0 :-:: 0.=
c-"g,"O '" 0 "
to:: = a c c:i .,.;- UI--
...'- '- co= I"""j ,"" -a a: 5
,- J! ... 0 '"' ..: y :0 , ::is};
~ 0 "1
::: ..e-t:~ ~ z."" 6;,1 ~
~-3r:
:S!";..c 0 Cl.t.n- t::1 ~'"
.- 0.- e u or) 2:- ~~;)
-5,di n-:::!:
~~:a~~~]~a71~~-6~~
Co,!! .M o.C.J::'--:'= ~~ c::.
>t":!... "tl ......, u ~ \I =...1 \,,;:!: ::J
:: C /,J "3 c E :J :; IJ._ ... ~ ,,,.,
8 t: !:: 0 .J!' ~ '':..g w ~ = e 0 -:-" ..1
e!l4~u::t.Q... 0"'.:11......:.1-
._ '"' U c:: t: _ ~ ~ ... ~ '.J a III ~ ~
~ u l: 0 a 1'1 c''::;''':- c":J": 1.it:.1
. ..: ': ';: -= 0 :::.= IJ 3 ;.:tl ,......
~ "'1:1 c.E \,I u:E 0.:0 9'= k= I.. E _"
'$~C::a-5i1~~r:".':::.I=OLo"l
U ~ ~"" 1.1 ~ u'~ '" '" ::::: "":'" ,:,:.2 U "f'
10.. IJ I.. .- = '\- ~~ a .. -
U" ~~rto\J;$lJ..c:::~"O
-: ~ ti j! ;:.::.s ';: -= .o..c -,j; ~:J
._ .J:J .... l":: =' \,I ",,-.:1'"
~ E c: r;..5 9 "Q '1:i c t "5':; =- l-
.;: ..., c,~ ~.'::! I.. ...t:: c:: .. ~ ~~
1 =0 8 E 5 af ~ :-\ G ... -:J Co.,:: ~ ..,.
~ "].::: ~ 0;': lo.o t;.~"'g""5;':"E ~...:.r
a ~ t.J g c:: -:J 0 ~ -5 ,~ rt ~ ~ ~ ,,, J! ~
v; .;2 c:: ,...,. rt j c:: tJ g 'C -3 -:J ,g :1 =:::: -
_ ;>~tJl"";l..tJl'.II-t.J__rt".,~:E.....
I:J '" - ::I rt C .- .- .-. --
~ ~~?~3~3~-5~~~~.>~
i::l
............'c.-.......-UI"'I -".z:"'" '.ll~'..'*"
o U .. II I"" - . _ '. " ~ _ 0'" . OJ < " ~ U .!
'-;i!.:;,:":"51~-=?; '0.,'< ill :.,~, ~!i'.o ,
~ :a.;"3..!t -g a "S c., . = ._' '!: ~ .2 ~ Q.; .~ U 14 ...= - ~
o"3H~~~.l!~.jf'5.~ g~~ra~ fi::l,'->n"~g@';~..
_ \l "u "'- - h _ '_ J!.. '" - ., ~ .. h ..'
j!ertu' ~ ..2!~:)cO .-~=r1jJl"'j':~ 2.1 ~ t~c: '<0
., - ll'" ':5 - 1! ;:; ~ . ,2 - > ri C ' $ .. - ~ 1! ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~;;;
E'e~;g~ ~ 0"-;; 9 e!i i:"~:l 0 hp.... , c ~...:.; ,E ~ H~o
" 2. '" .l! -: '0 - - · ., 'C ,,< ," I ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ _~ e' ~u v ~
E ga::.~;:; E:;; [< l!. ~ ~;j. .~ ~ - CI' - E ·
~ ~ ~ ~ a1f!i~ a~ ~ .. ~,~ ]. e'" ,,~-, ~] ~[' ~ ~ -= ;:9;ll
'S'U ~C...\ll,;l:rtloori ~ "Q...... >'11 r:E4:)1ic":.(
1I'l-.::J l.. >',;:1; ~.:: eo.. tJ .... ""':" tJl '",:-.: Q... "0 ~ I":..!i ... J:
'0 11~r; 1U).Il 1.0'" - -.l:'-" 0 '" 1.&:~tJ~
gc,~-=o.O-''''a"<"' .u.u.O" ~ t'O-"u'-,;!'O
_ ! ~,n ~ e; ~ 100 b u ~ ~ ~.~;!.. *] ~ "0 = bIt:; :. - ~.a '2 ~ "Q
~ ~ ~~~~14~ ~~'~rC: e.Q~.g3 ~~ [=c1 ~~~~~ ~ g~.810~
:: ,~ '"0 -J ..l: r1 \,;, ~ -;:: - ~ 0.:"'" r1 . ~ "0 "0 . ~ ~ c:: 'q,:.s e e ~ I -
.... Ioo.;.f \,j l..I '-'", ....::t c ..: ~"tJ l.,; 't;J .'1 \,j c: ~ ~ Q ~ i:; 0 .
I- t :;.a c - -=. ~ u '" .~ '" ro <J '" il.i: ~ 0 - ;$ '= ..! - " " ..'~, ~
. ... \,j :.. 11 = ';:.c: ... .. I: ..l::' ..c:... 0 l.. E 1"'1 r1 -\ :I 'II E 0 = ~
,... ~ _ .. 0. \,j .. l..I 0'-': r:; t.J -< u ,... oJ! 1:.0 ,.., _ rJ1.:J 11 - rt .... ,....
-
'"
..=~
!f'"
4"
.<5
:a-
-S~
'3<
~~
.:;... ,
U~.
rii1
g Ji
:3 ~ ,Sl
lj ,~~ ~
i::l
'-
Q
1I
OJ
:;/,
...
..
;a
:::l .
.:alii =:
U .g
-. "
Qg,,~>G
.. .
n "'..-a III ....
b"S.2:2 ~ l"'- ;:
a p'.!i Y'O ,.g
--aii!'~.
-;. ~ i. 3
"::II:i5 ""'.... ~;.
'C..:,':":::! c~;:.:,:O: ~
rt~~:;::l~utJ1v~
.= ~ ;: :- >. ii ~ J'l ~ ...
~ .. ~ ~ ~ - c. - 'g 0.
r. _ 'G '::; :: ~ ~'.... ...., '-
'... =.~ ... .:l ... =.,. _
... ~ e. E'-II 'II ,.., '.I".
~ .... e.. ~ J: " ~
::: 2....;; ~~~'t .~
'~"2 ~:: '";J ~':;;-'
'":j ~~..::: ,::: tl'~...,..:.
:: ~ '':: ] ~ 11. E. ~ - ~
.; '0 --G ;.., ... ~ ~ or: ;::l ~
e. ::.tl 0 :: r'l .'.... .
:l ,......'";J,c7,j .... ~
-:J :a '- .;,. "'...
=: n :Il:l .= ... :.i ,- ':;) '::: g
,g r'l 'C ,'~ g. t -=.3 ,i: ;:;. 10-,
c.-= c::]"'g.L't 'i:".... . .ll'i
cO ~ 0 ,; Ii - u ~~: ::;: ~
~ :i 5'~ 3 : ~ ~'~ ~ ~ :..
~>~ ''':.c 'C-;;;-f: == ';:;3~
..; :,..Yo u :: .. ~;;:: c.~""
.UU'-'.-' '
~~..Q'c::~!:!~~~
E _: rt -= ~ c .,.
o - O.:J 100 ... 0 .-
'-_- ~O=::;tJlj'
......2 C. ~ -= 1:"0":: ~ j
".. _._ l.i : 'l,I c - }(...
t.I _.:: .. = c":; -- 1"'\
..c: c ~ ':l)..:s 0 ':iJ C... <D
_-~~l1o'"C:=_5~'''
.::= .:; i1 ,., .1"1....:-= "
- ""~E""~'
-e~:g~~~.M:.;::~..::~
[1._ 100 I: r1 - - 0 :l ':01"
'0 ~-e ri 1! e ~ 2. " :~ -.
\II - c: ._ - \,j ~ ~ .... 11'\
W; r1._.~ ~ r; -:J I: "" n . ~
~ E "::i '"t = i:.. .... ';:"~ .:: ;10
" 1.1 l,j C ,"1 ... ~ c::,~ I:: 'Q ~
a a~]'";J E ~~ ~8'to~
: 1.1.: 0 ~ ~:.a.: =0 ~.3,~
\II 10. .- V .1
~ ~ Q c: E:J ..... '"B ';:;:s! - ~
, .. "d ~;; ~] t:" ~ 4 ~
_ .:J~E"l..Ia>~li....
1.1 ' , >. ' .
..==-~~
... ,_ ,_ - u,
::I 11...
~ = :.1':"::: <1
,5 - ~ If''a '-
~.::!~ 'C E ~
.c: ,- 'II M
~E t.lc.'-r--'
::1::1.1;'8."
~ =.c ... 0
.., 0 -":::l 'ri-
... ..... '- ~ - '":)
~.... o4:-al"1
a!! 1.1 ~ > <
I:~~:n~~
oc';::",l!""
';: ',:;I u..::: 3: 0"";
l"l 0) - [:;':10
:: >. '"0 '() :l a-
'~'811 · V" -.
;10 _ 11 l'S = .,..,
11 8 -011... ~
C ~ ~ h,
-.2ng.il~
g i=1 ~. !! ~ .:'1 >,,':' -.:: '.:. --:",:, > ..: "1';;'1
u .~.,~~C.cEg~~::" ~I"'I
. r.:; c ';; - ...."':l t -= -= ..::: .... A ::: ..(
... ~ ~ -.::; -.:: -= '5 ~:./1,..,
i ,~ ~. ~ ~ :,. .~ ~ ~ '5 ':; ~ ~ ~"1 ~
; -_l"l~ ~;:.~ 23 ~::l;' ~ ~;-:l
... ._ \I _ _..:l C. ::l;';: ;: I;: t Ul ,!, ~
:.JII-..-::lC-:"~ 'II
= C.J :.. '"'." '_.- .., .,'- .::...,::
,~~~,-,;~,::.. ~ ~,"
_ " ., 'U ~... '"jj 3 .0: :: ... ~ "'" j;
__'"'<i\"":.i"_"_-. .--
'~ ~.:.. :' ,...' ~ ;; l"l ~ 1 : ~ S 4 "
:.. ::; :jo:..l ~ -:J ... ~ .:: ':j'";.1"::::: 5,1"1 n
... c:-.. \I - 1 . ~ :l ,,= ;: ~ C.J -::: ~ ~
"..'":) ... 0 .. .. 1.1 '"l ., - . - ... ....
'C M=O_~''''-:J-=::l5''~ ':11
..c. r'l t; VI :~ -.1 ~ V l" :: :: ....: ~ rl ,..,
- .. .:.l.... 'C.J '" ... " \I ~ '1' ..:
.2Uo'-:; ::::';:' ,1 ;;,1:!.c ;, . 0':;
>:: 0 .J'l'::::: ~....;;:,..'";l 'ij ~
"':l~"'rj= t.:" 0$.-::::;= ,., ~~"T
~ ;; '.." :i ~ :..l~ ~-J ~ -5 : C ,:: - ;;;
',:; >. ,:... _ :: lj \I ,.:;: . '- -::;:l 0 .
r..:; ~ '/1..., 3 ~ _ g ::i 0 ::11::11 '" ~:~ ;;
_ :.. 1"' .: _ 0 -.;; ::: ::: ,::: ::l ~ .... r--
'-
Q
'"
"
OJ
7.
v,:,;;"~"";J
.... Ioo.c VI"'I
l:...:::.rJ -<
:! " ~ '...
'''.l::.o~
~ 10. 1,;:-:: 11"1
C:;:I;;:-= .
,,":: ,I:: ... t;
,_ :l ;: ::: ':Ill
c: E 3 -; .~
::I ~ u ,- I,;
'e ~ ~ ~ 0
~ :.11..0 :>
:!:-=~"":l :::
-:: '~ _' 3 .~ ~
1,;'- :::...
'- ... :... '-..c: ...
~ -:l lj! ';:U i:\. 0 ..:
~ u-= u.2 ~ 1t
:/'. 0 ... '... :1
j E C c:: ..;.;,
., 1:.- :l '...
a.. :1 ,14 C.:: ~ ,0'
=.. .~ ."1 ~ 1{ '4:)
'=..:: ;:: ,; -.
~.ao' ~ ~ 2.~ Q ~.-5 ~ :=: of r'l t; ~ ;, U ;.., ~ 4:)
cO .-'- .."., r'l -- .. -J Q .:: :Il:.j .. ::;::: Ii"
;j:jE::;:l~"B~c.._3:.i-:::O - ti E;:,:~<r,
::l~~".j-::~......"O'-~' ,::~;$r'l c:"'3!
'.ic::;.:.LI_'-"'J:I~I::~:'" ,....,...-I::J...... ..
~ t.i "., ::l':: .0 C .. :.i ,- - v;:::: c - Co '? :J
~L ~~v:;;'C.Ji:~5;~? ::l -J .::
'e ~ A ':;j ~ '-:j B -1 ~ :: <:) ~ ~ ..3 ~ :=i -;J I:.~ ?":d
<"1~;.o::: .l:lSe: _ _,-,~rt~'_'
-a c.. ~ ~ 0 -.c '....i: ~ ,:J ~ ~ ''3 i: ..2 _ 'iI :.l::l
-= '_. 'ij.a '.J ~ ::: :l .. ':"'2 '.......:::: -.:; ~ tJ _ . ,0
of 0 ii::i ;..,~:l-J:::~'~--:;; r.I':"1 g.v:o:': .:J~'-'
!::\,<~ 2'-..c'c'~c.'" ~'C.JIooU'::l'~ ".,"
d ~ 100 'T.j ... .. p... r:I ,'_ ,1 E -::J .c: ,"'l .1 ,;: E ~., ;: ."
e'" .... g I:: V ~ E ~ .... ::: ~ :..--: 0 e~..: ij ::
~ 'W.c.... 0';: a \0. ~ 'r; '3 1.1 9 ... j ~." ~ ~ -1 :: ~
~ I,;l.I~'T.j ~_~,.r.~-::l'-'-""'.a'.~
t "~:3 -5 n:a i:' 'i ~ 1J~ ~ = I'"! -: ~ ~"O C ,~ .~ ~
_ ::i ,- :::l __ '..! V t'l ''''.0 ".+I!::: :l,.. l! 1 \J t.I V - ....
S ~~.:l -.; tl ,- ~ 'II -. _:: ,..:.,. A u.a .: tJ
c u..c'....1:: ,;'-:1'" c:: rt=' ':: ,-~~.:..::
~ u 0 'J ... ~ - 0 .. :;. -r. v'" -,J .":,. .. ,-
'./I __...."":l ,- t;; ell ,. .. ,.... ....:::.i.t ~ ".+I ,1 X
~~~.~~'''~'j,~~,~~~~~ Ai~,s~ .
1::1 .... .' <"1 ':il.. 1"J" -a ",.."':J:.i I.I~:J J: . I.,
1-' -:;1 -:J ~ C. ~ \J " ='''' -:: ~l -:;:-:: :.. ......... ~, ::i ;: x
..I ~~.'~ ~:~ ~..=. t K.:: ~~.~ -5-j ~ 5.~, ~J~:?:
~
",2-
..,'"
=~
'5.3
-.
0-
U
J"
";11":;1
,- -
~-
~ ~ ~ \l
_ C _ './I
~ - . .
~ ~~ .~ t:
:il:l!.:
-......
.,. ....
:=!,~ .~ 'i- c.. :,
::: -. E .= ';.: 'J'l
.:l I;: U I:: Vi .
..::: u ....- =: ~
,,, ~ I: ;:1,~ -'
.' ;: ,- - ...-
':;]"'"O!:'O
Co e ~; ~ 1"'1
3_.~3,;:"O<
~ .2iil-3 ~c; ~
,g - 9 1:::3 7" lI"I
';; ~S c::.a 1. .."
\i3~.:':5~
...... :1'" lo.o C
"'_ ';J"C::' 2.'::f
." u '" '":I t.I
.2 ... i; ~ ,1.;:;: ~
!.,; .'_ '":I .1 J:: - '-I
-= -:i -~ E~'~ >
Zi ... ,,"":l'" ...--
;~,~~~~~~
IS.. I:: \J '__ i:: ';;;-
:J ;.. t ,"1 ~.r. ~
M g E -0.3 ,~~ K
..
..
"
OIl
-
'"
...
..
"
""
..
o
"0
..
;.
'0
'.
OIl
:a
-'!l
...
eo
"
~
E
-",
~~
.. ...
~ ~
""il
= ""
... "
.c '.
~
f'l
-
I"'l
III
<Ui
g~ C. '0 ~ ~ ~
c:: e a ~ I- " II!
,2 "'0 U i 'ii"
,= < 8" ~.l! '" .a
l!.g u' ~ ~ ;:;
r... I1IooQ 100 11-
1- '~~.!l"2':f.11
~ ~ -. ~~" ~
..2 -= ~ n i ~:E
.3 ... >t I:i \II:9-:Q
::: 0 ~ ~ 't: 'e -g a
'O~1ug~.l!
:;..E~v.ca
..::;" I- f....
~ ~H pu~
~~~_-U!
. 0." 0 il'~ -.'
.. c: \i a .L1 ";!i
rl - L i~h
" '" " "ll
g ~ ~!< 'E
~ r:: 3 c1
Eo.,:. .. E
E 0::: ~ .... ~
81 E ~ :l
~ :: t: ~]
:~8~9
-b1!c1 ~
c: ..::: o...c
~;1 _ c1 0
g,~~,-.c
tJ .:! 0 0 '""
]-=ec:o~
~ OJ) s.. \I VI
''/\~o~1:
,.... ':5 '~ 0..':!J.....
'::: 0::: ~ "0 1..-
oJ._ -::: c -
'':: '::: C c1 C Vi
.2 - 0 I.. 0
~ 8 E el)'':::
',/l s.. c1
VI -0 ~ 0 .'::
=-5 ~'Uj .~
s.. s.. Cl ;-;.
.0 ~Il 0 \I Iw
- .:: ~ il 0
'~I1~""B Cl.~
,S 1j ;; 11 0
"" 0 .. _ t:
~ a a~ a
o IJ 1A ..,
I.. ..c: c ~
c....... ~.2';:
=aollfia
r' c 1):':= ("J
...:i 1.1 ;;. 0._
E,g il'~
>-
Cl
~
OJ
(j
]
~!
~ !
I ~
.. -.:
.. ,~
8 g
~ ~
9 l:!
- "
a :il
~ ~
g ..;;
z _
~ "
~
...
~
~:-~~'--' .~
~
...
s
.,;
N '" ~
.~ N 4
.. I. L ,... N iii .
~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~. ~~ . .
. ~~ ~~ = ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
. .~ 1;1; ~ N 1 N o~. ~, ~~ .. ~
, ~~o ~. I ~., N ~ ~~ Il'is1 ~~ .
~ NO_' ~.~ ~ . ~ .~o ~ ,I I N .~ ~
~ N~~~ o~J ~~ ~ s .~~~~ ~. ~~ ~ . 'S2 N~~ ~4 ~
~. ~~s~ :oJ. ~~s~..' ~ '_~~'~~~~.~ IO~ N~~ ~~o~j~o .~N~ ~
o ..... .L'... N N N .... It'l 0 l/"I N 0 ~ .....'~ I If\ It'l I ... N .. .... .... Q -.. 0
SM~ 1~~~~~N""~-o1<~o~~NS ....2.1... ~~""~~~~OO.It'l.NJ ........It'loQ_..~-
0' r1" .....,""10 N.........,a:;...... ....-J.. It'l 0,...... .c"J<<N 0" 0....1011\ ~ I -00"!"
~~~~~*~i....9~~~~~~~~g~~;~S~i~~~*~~~~~~~i~~z~~~';~~~~~
IN-~.!~i......~~..To2N7-S.gi~Q~~~~S~-.IO.j'''o--~-~~6028~~6N'''Qoj
i~o.... rU .LO ~ ... .. ...... o~ ~ 2~r1"N "OON -..........~ N-ib 0"'" _...0
~ ~-O=~J~~~~J....S.:~~;-t~~~~~~~;~8-l~ ....o~ g~4~.... .~~~~N..~~N
~ I4l 0 "f c..J '""I... CD J r<I I - 0 . = "'" 8 '"' N.... l4\ ""', ... ~. I I 0' ~ 8 lI\ I#l '- "'" I 0
5~~cJ5~~~~~~;Z~~~1~~~fJ~:N~Z~~1~~}~~~2~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~
.~~~~~uJu~~J ""'~~~~~~~~J~l4\~~~:~~J'" ~~""'~gUi~N~~~~~~~~~
-"'-n' '."'."'''" "Jl""'t~"" '."'. ....lar: JJJ......:...~ ....""< ~u~~.....,.j~'" '~J~"'_'" .J~
'~N~~~~~C ~U ~~~c~ 2~' ,'""I~.c~~ ~~~ U 0 ~ .~~~u""'t>~~!~'
; ~~uc~~"",ucu~ux~u~~~~~~~~~~u~~~'2~~cu"",~"",= gu~~~ C ~~
~ .~~~~~U~d~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~ ,~ .~~
, : : :: '! : ' : ,: :'. .: :::. :..::::::::::::::
: , : . ". , :, , ...,.:' : ~':.'. '.:' ,",'.:.
.~:::.(~:::::: :j ~(::J~~~H::'~lJi~~:::::~!.
"~";'1~~ '.'. -6'2 ~l~~.n~ ~t~aJ" 'i '~- " "~,F>'
l~j~i!~jl~!jJ~Jjj~!!!fJ!!l~!jjiiiiii~~j!ijj~~g!I~~1
~ =-ag:3;;~ c,,-ij'~"B-obvic1
::s Co ~ VI u ~ ~'~..!:!~"Q ~ ~~Q..
0 >.I'l ~~.!4~ I: '... ~ ' c ~ c _ .,.
z ~> c:rutoQ', ,_
1- - . ::: '" U ~ c:: 1:.1I '" lI"\ lI"\
C Coll\ Q ~
.... c U... l. -= c':" 'U ~ .= ~ ~ ...:
:l! 'S; '" t2i ""'~,... 0;.1 ~ Co "Q = . ,.,.
Cl ~ ~~~ ~ 2.~o~b>~""
0."0 ...: ~ ,., I. V "'0
~ e] "B ,5:q C(" Q"'g ti V'o I;Q :5 ~ :'l I"'"~
3~..W1ltv~~<
u.-ij-", ~t.)8<.c:~:.:. f'O'\
~ ~ "~.~":;' ...."2 - vj...:: I. 1(".0:
"'O~ N"'O ~ v ...,.
Q:":: ,N "" <#lU 'j U "':I,., "'0 z
-'=-5 ~<< "I. l'lI , ~ U , 0
:3 ~ ~.~,~ ~ ~ l! ..vi &: c C E .: ~ 6
- ! Q.. ,., ,9 .g e :Q '2
~ _ "tI 1:1'" ~ ';..l"" N'" Co, e.D_ ..
= :l ~ 0:0:::...." !r\ N ~ 0 ::l is
- .. "'5 t.oll'l"': OX) ~a';"3'~~~~~ Q
(j " .!!"'O c~] 0- == ~ cJ ~ :3'- Vl
:3 u c::.... - ~ I. c:: == < t1 ~ ;;:
~ ~ 1i .:d c~ ~ ",,~gu"~]c::""~-d ~J ::>
= ~ ~:.=.: g,:;: ,.., :l '= JI ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ t ...
::s ;..
... '0 i] ~ 1 ~ ~ ~"E~-g Cl
" U 0
~ "'t1~<"1 Q t;;;
... ~ ~ !:! ao." 611'I' "tI ~ I:: ~:: I.
e - 0 o.l! ::>
~ ,;, ~~1"'"1 fa = - Vl ::>
Z :I - . u
.... ~. ... < 1: ~ '2.: 2
"" ~ -U"':lU"; "uo.o:: Cl
~..c I.,",!~ ~~ J~2.ri3 ==
.. '. ~ III -< :l""
pO) -i r~"'-;;~i 3 h ~ ~ ::<:
III ... e.., :to "; "0 I":l fa.:: U
Wl'l ~c3" 0.-, :; C !;n':.8
~ e ~~...o
~ "L~ ,o<.:;;l; ,Og,O.....
f-s e~~~'~ I. ~., ~ ,.
o ~ .,
rJJ ~~i"'-,~.!! -~.iJ,O"
c.i !j g ,.a3 t:~:: O>(j i r~ j!
" ~ ..,,~ "
l ~ ~ ";"':1 =/"'j
a. ...2 .:X~...~o
. ~."." 0<1': .l,I u _...
1w"3 ""':I
::l j~ ,:I:~,~ ~~~~:B '" - -
- =
- :I::.:c: ~..,. :.>.,.., N .-
_4 '..
..~
..
,;,
';:
:l
....
~
~
I
:e
8
's
e ~
5 '~
ba
~ '~
1
~ i~
~~
uo.
]~
it
i~
~~
~~
~
~
9
" <i
.9 i1 ~ ..:
t:I u ~ C 11
'E- ~ - :a ~
~ I,J CJ U C.
.g ,,-il -:;u ,., ~
"" u ~ .g~ .9 u
.. u ~ !~~ ~
-= -= 9 ~-"'O ~ w;
N ~o ~~""oc ~ ~.
, OJ, u_ u~ou.. _ ~~
100 :;.. y'j:l ~ ..0 CJ 0 - ~
~ c! ~~ ~U_Ioo~ 0-
C. .... 11 0 _ 0 IU 0 f,J IU '. ""
l"1 .... ~ 0.00;: ._"'::1 OU 100 .:! c...
.:: -cl e VI u E "'0 V >'l l"S "0 Un'''' ~
j ~ E 0 'Q.<l s: ~ '" ~ ~-il <i " Vi ~ ~-.::
::l Il,jO..o :s -usoo \I-;;;loori:iO
III .J:U '0 o lit U :J<<J~~b....Y;;I.~
o \I~ C ~] ~~t.)~a.9~:-::Q''''..g~
.<l "" ,_;j - <J U VI U U Q
= 0 - III ~ 0 "1'J.... ~ ~....." ::J >'..c:: S..c ~ ""
~Q ~U '" - "'3!l~ u",-"~=", "
~ .:: ~ ~ c:: >'-5 l"S..., l' >. ~ iU g g c: Q U 100 0
Co ~2 - Vi ii .<l a VI ~ ~ '8 " ;:j ~ ,., '-11 E Q ".:l
2~ ~i u~i~ ~~~~~,os.~~~~,~]
..Ila ~:!! ~2:Ej-il~2.-g5U~?1l>,1~-ot:08:
a U 0. 51 0...2 ~ " .:l _ ,., "" "a 0 - ~ a Vi g'Q il:.:: ,.,
_-0 t- "'_~=~QUQ "ail~E"'o u8:~
Q"~" !!. il""=i:I.,,~"au,,,o=''''-~'''''i:J
~ l'1 0 0"0 ,iU ~ 0 9 - u 0 0 ..] Q U ~ ~ u .....2 .. 0
-lo.~oc:oo......t1c::""'':';ii UVlUr!-.:2
;; ;.:;j,,~9!l~g::la~:lf2~ ~];'~.~i1Ii~~
t: ,,~U U u"3 ,,~ E ,:: ''-is ~... 11' Vi... "'_ j ~ :I ~ _ 'C
9 !:: ~ c: S ~ --3 e e i:....q ~ ~ c ~ ~;.::: & ~..g G u go E ~ ,9
_...~::s'Z- -"'~"'~-"':2'" ~"- ~ ==~
=~~ ... ,Z Vl~~~~~~~ ~~ ~_ ~__
,:l . . . , , .
.tj::;: ':;::t:J:~ ~
.J,:;: ~::'~~ ~
., .
r< aci ()'. 0 ~~ c-i ...; .; vi ..:i ,...; !Xi 0:. 0 ....; ~ ,..; '1. vi ~
~~~ln'~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~'~~~.~~~~~~~
· L'-S\e'i SfA-'CC
Plaintiff
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
:CIVIL ACTION - LAr.,
:NO. S" ~l.\9 CIVIL
: CUSTODY /VI SITATION
19 q,-\
v
· Laura ~\ClI \- Kt:s'::>f1~\
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT'
AND NOW, this (date) " I ~\ ,ell, upon consideration of the
attached complaint, it is hereby direct~q that the parties and
their respective counsel ap'pear befo e IVI . ,
the conciliator, at .~ ~ r , , \., '''' .
on the i R day oi c., , 1'9.
A I H., ior a Prehearing C tody onierence. At such conference,
an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if
this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be
heard 'by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. Either
party may bring the child who is the subject of this custody
action to the conference, but the child/children's attendance is
not mandatory. Failure to appear at the conference 'may provide
grounds for entry of a tempC?rary or permanent order.
FOR THE COUR:r':
By,mlc-(?C\.o 0 ,-1. --F.(\,~l~
---cust:Oc1y conclllat~r'{\b.) -r-
YOU SHOULD :r'AKP: :r'HIS PAPER ro YOUR LAWYER A:r' ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVI!: A LAfiYBR OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO ro OR :r'ELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SE:r' FORTH BRLOfI ro FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GE:r' LEGAL HELP.
OFFICE OF THE COURT A.DHINIS:r'RATOR
COURTHOUSE, FOURTH FLOOR
CARLISLE PA 17013
(717 )240-6200
'i I
, ,
" ,
I'"
\:/
· . 'J
· L661 0 & ln~'i
~~6L -Ev~ (lLL)
ELOLL \fd 'QlsIIJa::> . onU'M\f ^lJoq'l '3 V . 110' ^lJoql,
UOIIVJodJoO IVUOISSOjOJd \f
UMOJ8 PU8 ..Ie~8)1
,
,
"
I, i
, ,
"
,i\:_.'
I',
I. 'I'
il',
"
"
,
"
"
"
"1',
,1, I',
\,..,n l. },
, '
;'
"I,:
I:'
'f.'
&'l I
~
loot
. ...
W loot
> ~ ~.
si
, Pi
, "
io't
lI)15 ...'
ib lot
E
...Q
! ,
1,' ~ ~
3 a
,I.
.i
,
.
.
.JJ' ',;'.;
,
, , Ii)!
, ,
, , ': , , ,
. , ,.
" ,
I,
',,~,,' "
,',
."l"i
" ,
,i'
,It
'1'1
,
"
I
,
r'
'I"
,ji
'I
) i.
',j .'.,
"
"
"
"
,I'
I
'i
"
'-'J:
"
"
i,".
"
1;\
,,',
,
IIi'"
. "
. I
~'Q"
~11=}ll1'
ij"..:,:. ,~,~"
r-: (J"
1<: "0.
p-n ~
:;l~ ~ i
::.\ ~
:< ifa' .
4, Th~ lIIother of th~ child is Luum M~ssner, curr~ntly residing lit RDI Box 179, Elliotlsburg,
Pennsylvllnia 17024, She is married,
5, The titth~r of the child is Willium L. Davis, currently residing at 118 E, Willow Str~et.
Carlisl~. Pennsylvania 170 U, He is lIIurried,
6, The relationship of Pluintiff 10 the child is that of father, The Plllinllff currently resid~s with
the following person(s):
Name Relationship
Juli~ Davis Wife
7, The r~lationship of the d~fendant to the child is that of mother. The Defendant curr~ntly
r~sid~s with child and th~ following p~rson(s):
Nmn~
R~lationship
Tory S. M~ssn~r Hushand
8. Plaintiff has not participated us u party or witn~ss, or in another capllcity. in oth~r litigation
concerning the custody of the child in this or unother court, Plaintiff hus no infonnation of a custody
proceeding concerning th~ child p~nding in a court of this Comlllonw~alth. Plaintiff docs not know of
u person not a party to th~ proc~~dings who has physical custody of th~ child or claims to haw cuslody
or visitation rights with resp~ct to th~ child.
9. D~f~ndant r~(]II~sts this Honorubl~ Conrt to t~nninutt~ Ih~ visilution of the put~rnal
gmlllhnotht'r as it no l,mger s~rv~s th~ h~sl int~rests of th~ child, This court has upprov~d the adoption
of th~ child by Tory S, M~ssner and hus t~rminated th~ parentul rights of William Davis. Th~
Grandparent's Visitation Act pursUilll1 to 2~ Pa, C.S, Section 5~ 10 ~t. seq. conditions sllch visitation upon
a "best inter~sts" analysis, Defendant b~liev~s that given the adoption, and given the child's continu~d
" #0
LESLEY SPACE,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. 94-5349 CIVIL TERlt
LAURA HART MESSNER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant IN CUSTODY
IN RE: CONTEMPT HEARING
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 1997, this
matter having been called on a petition of Lesley Space, to hold
Laura Hart Messner in contempt, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Disposition on this contempt petition is
deferred on condition that Laura Hart Messner complies with all
of the terms and condition of this Court's order November 15,
1994, with the following amendment:
2. The paternal grandmother shall have
visitation with her grandson, Erik Messner, 9:00 a.m. until
7:00 p.m. on the second Sunday of each month pending further
order of this Court. As long as the mother complies with all of
the terms and conditions therein, upon entry of that order, this
contompt petition shall be dismissed. If the mother does not
comply with all terms and conditions therein, paternal
grandmother shall seek a further hearing of the within petition
for contempt.
By the co,,/
HI'; /1
...~y. 3.
/
. - 'I'
W\Ji\.;,!'
....-
~,"'i'I'.';.'...:'
, t':. -'eL ',. .,;
'-:j....,~
. , " ..
"'i'ill!. '
,t'41, ,
'1 '
,)' ~ 1
.',' 'I, :
;'ilI :
'Hell i
I". \,'
,~ 1.1
'.r)\j'
Jk~ '
2'\:;'1
, -,I
F1Lr;/)-{)FFiCc
OF THr. (:';1(;,/ ~'('I lOT MY
,I'
I
SHut; 18 PO ,3127
CUA/f:U'jI:'" .. 1 ";Uf'\iY
Pt:I"I\I"\'II/:""~1
L."""'I "''1"
,I
,I
.
"
, I
[' 'I
I
'j
, f.
,1
;'
.1
'""..
,
,
, ~ .
t,
..
\1
1",
..
~,
-- .~..
"
.,.
LESLIE SPACE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V,
LAURA MESSNER
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PETITIO~ OF MOTHeR TO TEFlMI~ATE GRANDMQTHER'S VISITATION
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
BAYLEY, J., January 2, 1988:--
Laura Messner Is the mother of Erik Messner, age 8, born May 9, 1989, The
mother divorced Erik's natural father, William Davis, in August, 1993, She married
Tory Messner on July 15, 1995, Tory Messner adopted Erik on March 31, 1997,
WIlliam Davis, who was never married to the mother, consented to the adoption, Erik
and his parents live in Elllotsburg, Perry County, Erik visits with his natural paternal
grandmother, Leslie Space, at her home In Camp Hill, one Sunday each month
pursuant to an order entered on November 15, 1994, The grandmother provides the
transportation. The order of November 15, 1994, provides:
[u]pon receipt of the conciliator's report, it appearing that the terms of
this order have been agreed upon by the parties and by the biological
father of the child, William Davis, and that this order was dictated in the
presence of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and Mr. Davis, and approved
by all of them, we hereby order as follows:
(1) Primary legal and physical custody of the minor child, Erik
Hart, born May 9, 1989, shall continue in his mother, the Defendant,
Laura Hart.
(2) The paternal grandmother and her hu.band, the Plaintiff.,
Le.lle Space and Archie Spice, .han ha". temporary or partial
cu.tody of the .ald child from 10:00 I.m. until 7:00 p.m. on the
.econd Sunday of each month. They shall be responsible to provide
the transportation for such periods of temporary or partial custody, The
mother of the child, on no less than fifteen (15) days advance notice to
Mr, and Mrs. Space, may change the date of their period of temporary
"
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
custody from the second Sunday of the month to the third or fourth
Sunday of the month, in the event that the child Is not available to be
with Mr, and Mrs, Space on the second Sunday of the month because
of a regularly-scheduled activity of the child or the motherl to Include
vacations, which make him unavailable,
Leslie Space saw him Intermittently until the order of visitation was entered on
November 11, 1994, After Tory Messner adoptl9d Erik, he and the mother refused to
allow Erik to continue to visit Leslie Space, On May 28, 1997, an order was entered,
supported by a written opinion, adjudicating the mother in contempt of the visitation
order of November 15, 1994, The mother was allowed to purge herself of contempt
by complying with the order starting in the month of June, 1997, The mother has
complied since that time, She and her husband have now flied a petition to terminate
the visitation rights of Leslie Space, A hearing was conducted on December 4, 1997,
Leslie Space was granted visitation with Erik by the order of November 15,
1994, pursuant to 23 Pa,C,S, Section 53121 that provides:
In all proceedings for dissolution, subsequent to the
commencement of the proceeding and continuing thereafter or when
parents have been separated for six months or more, the court may,
upon application of the parent or grandparent of a party, grant
reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried
child If It find. that vl.lt.tlon right. or partial custody, or both, would
be In the be.t Int.r..t of the child and would not Int,".r. with the
par.nt,chlld r.l.tlon.hlp. Th. court .hall con.ld.r the amount of
peraon.1 contact betwe.n the parent. or grandpa,.nt. of the party
and the child prior to the application. (Emphasis added,)
As we set forth in our opinion of May 28, 1997, under the holding of Surovl.c
v. Mitchell, 347 Pa, Super. 399 (1985), the spousal adoption of Erik by Tory Messner
did not terminate the visitation rlgnts of Leslie Space, Accordingly, we must now
-2-
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
determine whether that visitation should be continued pursuant to standards set forth
at 23 Pa,C,S, Section 5312.
The grandmother's daughter, Cheryl Davis, IIveiS with her and Archie Space.
She has a son age 13 and a daughter age 10, When Erik visits his grandmother he
often plays with his cousins, In addition to doing things around the house with his
grandmother, she takes him to movies, church picnics, fairs, and other attractions,
The grandmother testified the Erik enjoys his visits, She and her husband and other
family members have a good relationship wllh him,
The mother testified thai her relationship with Leslie Space has never been that
good, She and her husband feel that her visitation interferes with Erik's relationship
with his father, He works weekdays for United Parcel Service from 4:30 p,m, until
2:30 a,m, When school Is in session Erik only sees him on weekends, From the
testimony of both parents and Erik it is apparent that Erik has developed a close
loving relationship with his father, The parents' desire to terminate the grandparent
visitation is also affected by an occasion in August, over four months after the
adoption, when William Davis attended a family gathering at his mother's residence
when Erik was there, Davis had little contact with Erik during any period of the child's
life. The parents feel that a continuation of visitation with the grandmother and her
family will confuse Erik and int9rfere with their parent-child relationship,
When we talked to Erik in chambers he complained that seeing his
grandmother once a month was limiting the lime that he was able to spend with his
-3-
94-5349 CIVIL TERM
father, He acknowledged that he knows that his parents do not want him to continue
to see his grandmother, He Is In the middle and his comments have to be Judged In
that perspective.
In Blehop v. PIII.r, 536 Pa, 41 (1994), the Issue before the Supreme Court was
whether a paternal grandparent of a child born out of wedlock may be awarded
visitation rights under Section 5312 where the child's father had no legal relationship
with the child or the child's mother, Two out of five Justices concluded that the
mother and father were "separated" as that word is used in Section 5312, Two
Justices concurred in the result which affirmed the trial court's grant of visitation to
the grandparent. Two Justices dissented; however, those Justices stili referred to the
standing afforded to grandparents as "[a] 'long overdue' statute with such laudable
ends and objectives," The opinion in support of the judgment of the Court stated:
Nothing is more central to the happiness of many people than to
look after the well being, and enjoy the society of, their grandchildren,
Indeed, the only Immortality most of us have In this life Is the promise
offered by children and grandchildren. After years of toil and worry in
raising one's own children, grandparents look forward to the opportunity
of spending time with their grandchildren, of spoiling them, and of
passing on to them family history and the wisdom of ages, For too long
this natural right was denied statutory recognition and protection, Now
that it has been recognized, we find that the Act covers situations like
the one presented in this case,
It must be remembered that grandchildren, too, have the natural
right to know their grandparents and that they benefit greatly from that
relationship, Grandparents give love unconditlonally--wlthout
entanglement with authority or discipline, and often without pressures of
other burdensome responsibilities. Children derive a greater sense of
worthwhileness from g rand parental allention and beller see their place
in the continuum of family history. Wisdom Is Imparted that can be
attained nowhere else.
-4-