Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2183 CIVILW A. L and J L , Plaintiffs VS. A K. L and R P. B , Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CIVIL IN CUSTODY IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO TERMINATE CUSTODY ORDER BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is a petition of the defendants to terminate a custody order granting the plaintiffs' rights of visitation with respect to the child, L E B , the plaintiffs' granddaughter. The facts of this unusual case are essentially undisputed. L E B (formerly L E L ) was born on January 2, 1991, to D F. L and P S K . When L was an infant she was removed from her mother's care and placed in the custody of her father, who was partially paralyzed due to a brain injury. L lived with her father in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, which is the home of the plaintiffs, W L and J L , who are her paternal grandparents. During the time that L resided with her father, the plaintiffs provided considerable assistance in the upbringing of the child, including transportation to school, dance lessons and Sunday School, buying her clothes and taking her on vacations. L 's father committed suicide in 1999. After that, L went to live with the plaintiffs. She had her own bedroom in the L house and all of her belongings were located there. The defendants, A K. B , the sister of D L , and R P. B ("aunt" and "uncle") were also significantly involved in L 's life and she spent many 00-2183 CIVIL weekends with them. In 1999, following the suicide of her father and after she had lived with her grandparents for some time, L was found dependent and placed in the custody of the defendants. L 's placement was supported by the plaintiffs who felt they were too old to take care of a child on a fulltime basis. Because, however, the grandparents were denied access to L , they filed a petition seeking rights pursuant to the Pennsylvania Grandparent Visitation Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5311 et seq. By court order dated October 13, 2000, the undersigned granted rights of partial custody to the plaintiffs consisting of one weekend a month. In February of 2002, the Honorable Edward E. Guido of this court entered a decree in adoption whereby the defendants adopted L . The defendants now seek to terminate the plaintiffs' rights of visitation conferred in our order of October 13, 2000. Pennsylvania law allows for grandparent visitation rights under certain enumerated circumstances. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5311-13. The grandparents in the present case were granted visitation with their granddaughter pursuant to Section 5313 relating to the situation where a child has resided with her grandparents for a period of at least twelve months. The current visitation rights enjoyed by the grandparents are now being contested under a section of the code that contains an exception to grandparents' rights of visitation when the child has been adopted. That section states: Section 5311 (relating to when parent deceased), 5312 (relating to when parents' marriage is dissolved or parents are separated ) and 5313 (relating to when child has resided with grandparents) shall not apply if the child has been adopted by a 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. 2 00-2183 CIVIL 23 Pa.C.S.A. 5314. The defendants ceased to allow L to visit with her grandparents once she was adopted by them. The defendants, rather than have the instant matter resolved in the context of a contempt case, have, to their credit, filed the petition to confirm termination of the existing custody order currently before the court. They argue that the plain reading of Section 5314 leads ineluctably to the conclusion that visitation rights must now be terminated because the child was clearly adopted by someone "other than a step-parent or grandparent." The plaintiffs argue that, although the child was not adopted by a step-parent or grandparent, protection of their visitation should be extended in this case because the child was adopted by blood relatives. The plaintiffs point the court to the case of Suroviec v. Mitchell, 500 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 1985) in support of their contention that visitation rights do not terminate when the child is adopted under the circumstances presented in this case. That was a case, however, where the children involved were, in fact, adopted by a step-parent. The language upon which the plaintiffs rely surrounds the Superior Court's discussion of another case in which the child was not adopted by a step-parent; namely, Foust v. Messinger, 497 A.2d 1351 (Pa. Super. 1985). In discussing that case, the court in Suroviec noted (in what is essentially dicta) that "when a child is adopted by a couple who were previously unrelated to the child, the family relationship is severed with the natural family and established with the adopting family." The court goes on to observe that the severance of grandparents' rights of visitation occurs "only if a child is adopted by both a new mother and a new father who were previously unrelated to the child." Suroviec v. Mitchell, 500 A.2d at 896. In this case, the adopting parents were previously related to the child as aunt and uncle. Despite the adoption, the plaintiffs remain the grandparents of L in every sense of the word. Nonetheless, the clear language of the statute appears to terminate the 3 00-2183 CIVIL grandparents' rights of visitation by virtue of the adoption. We strongly suspect that the legislature did not anticipate the situation sub judice. Support for the plaintiffs' arguments can be found in the jurisprudence of other states. A number of courts have stated that the termination of grandparents' rights upon adoption is a result of the desire to sever the ties between the child and the biological family. Because parental rights are terminated, the grandparents become strangers to the child for all purposes. See Suster v. Arkansas Dep't. of Human Servs., 314 Ark. 92, 858 S.W.2.d 122 (1993); Mauldin v. Richter, 515 So.2d 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1987); Mitchell v. Erdmier, 253 Ga. 335, 320 S.E.2d 163 (1984). The concern is that a relationship with the former grandparents would be disruptive to the new family. See In Interest ofA. C., 428 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa 1988). Here, there is no "new family." Thus, a strong argument can be made that the denial of grandparents' visitation in the present case is a result that the Pennsylvania legislature could not have intended. We can point, however, to no legislative history which supports that argument nor do we have the benefit of any appellate case law to that effect. Instead, we are satisfied that this court is bound by the universally accepted tenet of statutory construction that words in a statute must be construed according to their plain meaning. 1 Pa.C.S.A. 1903(a). "When the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, a court cannot disregard them under the pretext of pursuing the spirit of the statute." Grom v. Burgoon, 672 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 1996). We reluctantly conclude that the petition, terminating our prior custody order, must be granted. According to the clear words of the statute, the rights of grandparents survive only where a child has been adopted by a step-parent or grandparent. The defendants are neither. 4 00-2183 CIVIL ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2002, the petition ofA K. B and R P. B to confirm termination of custody order is GRANTED and our order of October 13, 2000, is VACATED. BY THE COURT, Thomas S. Diehl, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Stephen J. Dzuranin, Esquire For the Defendants Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Conciliator :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J. WALTER A. LANAGAN and JOAN LANAGAN, Plaintiffs VS. ANNMARY K. LANAGAN and ROBERT P. BIHL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 00-2183 CIVIL IN CUSTODY IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO TERMINATE CUSTODY ORDER BEFORE BAYLEY AND HESS, JJ. ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2002, the petition ofAnnmary K. Bihl and Robert P. Bihl to confirm termination of custody order is GRANTED and our order of October 13, 2000, is VACATED. BY THE COURT, Thomas S. Diehl, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Stephen J. Dzuranin, Esquire For the Defendants Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Conciliator :rlm Kevin A. Hess, J.