On August 29, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a decision to terminate a father’s parental rights in the matter of Adoption of M.R.D. and T.M.D..
The Court held that the child’s mother did not present a valid adoption petition, where she sought to retain her parental rights and to co-parent with her own father following the adoption.
Parents separated prior to the birth of their twin sons in 2004. Father had minimal contact with the children, visiting only twice and declining an offer of a visit from Mother and the children in 2007. Mother’s parents had extensive contact with the children, and provided housing and other support to Mother.
In December, 2012, Father initiated a custody action. The next month, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights and a petition for adoption by her father, the children’s grandfather. The Orphan’s Court granted Mother’s petitions. The Superior Court denied Father’s appeal and affirmed the termination of his parental rights and adoption. Father then petitioned the Supreme Court to determine whether Mother could seek Grandfather’s adoption without relinquishing her own parental rights.
Pennsylvania law allows “any individual” to adopt.
The process of adoption terminates the parental rights of the child’s first parents. Termination of parental rights is necessary to protect the new family unit. A parent, therefore, may not petition to terminate the rights of the other parent unless an adoption is contemplated. Further, a parent may retain his or her rights in an adoption proceeding only if that parent’s spouse is the proposed adoptive parent. In addition, the parent may “show cause” to establish that the purposes of the Adoption Act can be served without relinquishment of parental rights.
In the past, relinquishment of parental rights by a birth parent has been deemed unnecessary in adoption petitions filed by same-sex partners. These cases were decided before same-sex couples were granted the right to marry. The courts determined that an intact family unit would be created where the birth parent’s same-sex partner within a committed relationship was the proposed adoptive parent. These cases therefore held that the petitioning birth parent had “shown cause” why relinquishment of parental rights was not necessary to proceed with the partner’s adoption of the child.
In M.R.D., the Court reviewed the purpose of the adoption process, which is to establish a new family unit when doing so is in the best interest of the children.
Here, no new family unit would be established through the maternal grandfather’s adoption of the children. The grandparents resided separately from Mother and the children. No change in either living arrangements or contacts with the children was contemplated following adoption. The adoption would also create dual and conflicting roles for all of the adults: grandfather and father; grandmother and stepmother; and mother and stepsister. Further, approval of an adoption under these circumstances would establish a precedent that would enable vindictive parents an opportunity to terminate rights in favor of any number of individuals with no formal relationship with the children.
heARTbeat is a publication of KingSpry’s Adoption Law and Assisted Reproductive Technology Law Practice Group. It is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
