In re J.M.B.

308 A.3d 1262

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.M.B.

Appeal of: L.M., Mother

No. 467 WDA 2023

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued November 14, 2023

Filed January 22, 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered March 24, 2023, In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Orphans’ Court, at No(s): 13 of 2022, Joesph E. Kubit, J.

Heather M. Papp-Sicignano, Cranberry Township, for appellant.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.^*

OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.:

L.M. (Mother) wanted her two-year-old daughter, J.M.B. (the Child), to be adopted by the Child’s godmother, S.W. (Godmother), with whom Mother would then coparent. J.B. (Father), who had been absent from the Child’s life, consented to the proposed adoption and agreed to relinquish his parental rights. However, the orphans’ court denied Mother’s petition after it concluded the proposed adoption was not authorized under the Adoption Act. See generally 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938. Mother appealed. After careful review, we affirm.

The simplicity of the facts belies the complex legal issues involved. The Child was born in May 2020. Mother and Father never married, but they resided together until their relationship ended around August 2021. For a time thereafter, Father’s whereabouts were unknown. In November 2021, Mother filed a custody complaint and subsequently obtained sole legal and physical custody of the Child. In April 2022, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s rights, identifying the Child’s Godmother as the prospective adoptive parent.

Mother and Godmother have been friends since they were teens, and their families are very close. Godmother is a source of support for Mother. The Child refers to Godmother as an aunt, and the Godmother’s husband, D.W., (also the Child’s Godfather) as an uncle. Godparents have a child of their own. They live approximately 30 minutes away from Mother and the Child. The two families celebrate holidays and special occasions together.

In June 2022, Father purportedly agreed that the adoption would be in the Child’s best interest, and he understood he would have to relinquish his parental rights. Mother then withdrew her petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s rights, and in July 2022, Mother filed the instant adoption petition.

In August 2022, the orphans’ court scheduled a status conference to address its concern that the proposed adoption was invalid. Following the status conference, the court directed Mother to brief the issue. Mother complied and the orphans’ court scheduled a hearing, which was eventually held on February 27, 2023.

Mother appeared at the hearing with counsel. She offered her own testimony and that of Godmother, Godfather, and L.D.M. (Maternal Grandmother). All were in favor of the proposed adoption. Mother and Godmother said they understood the legal and financial ramifications of the adoption; Godfather acknowledged Godmother would be as responsible for the subject Child just as she was for Godparents’ own daughter. Mother explained that the reason for the proposed adoption was because she wanted the Child to be taken care of in the event of her untimely death. The court heard no testimony that Godmother or Mother intended to live together or combine households. Mother also testified that she is currently involved in a romantic relationship. Although a marriage was not anticipated at the time of the hearing, Mother testified that any potential marriage would not affect the proposed adoption.

After taking the matter under advisement, the orphans’ court denied Mother’s petition on March 24, 2023. Mother filed this appeal, wherein she presents the following two issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion in applying In re Adoption of M.R.D. , 145 A.3d 1117 (Pa. 2016)?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to recognize both parents’ agreement to the adoption of the child by [the] proposed adoptive parent [as] a "good cause" exception under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901?

Mother’s Brief at 6.

[1] We address these issues contemporaneously because they pose the same question. Mother essentially challenges how the orphans’ court applied the Adoption Act. Such a claim presents a pure question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See, e.g., M.R.D., ,145 A.3d at 1126; see also In re Adoption of M.E.L., — Pa. —, 298 A.3d 118 (2023).

[2–4] Our Supreme Court has also held that part of the analysis in Section 2901 of the Adoption Act involves the lower court’s discretion. M.E.L., 298 A.3d at 127 (citing In re Adoption of R.B.F., 569 Pa. 269, 803 A.2d 1195, 1202 (2002) and 23 Pa. C.S.A.§ 2901). Thus, to the extent Mother also challenges the discretionary aspect of the orphans’ court decision, we review for an abuse of discretion. Such a review requires appellate courts:

to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

[5–7] The Adoption Act provides, rather succinctly, "Any individual may become an adopting parent." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2312. Notwithstanding this broad declaration, the Act imposes exacting substantive and procedural requirements necessary to support an adoption decree. See Interest of K.N.L., — Pa. —, 284 A.3d 121, 139 (2022). These requirements "serve the critical broadscale function of scrutinizing the safety, wellbeing, and viability of the resulting court-sanctioned, permanent parental relationship." Id. at 139. Relevant here, the Act requires both parents to relinquish their parental rights, either voluntarily or involuntarily. See generally 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501-2521, 2711(a)(3), (d)(1); see also R.B.F., 803 A.2d at 1199, The purpose of the relinquishment requirement is to sever the legal ties between the child and the natural parents, thereby allowing the child to be adopted into a new family unit, where the child may then form new bonds with the new parents unencumbered by the former legal parents. M.R.D., 145 A.3d at 1128.

[8, 9] However, the Adoption Act provides an exception to this relinquishment requirement in the context of stepparent adoptions. Under Section 2903 of the Act: "Whenever a parent consents to the adoption of His child by his spouse, the parent-child relationship between him and his child shall remain whether or not he is one of the petitioners in the adoption proceeding." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2903. "Adoption in such circumstances allows the prospective adoptive parent to create a new parent-child relationship with the legal parent’s child and a family unit together with the co-parent to whom he or she is committed." M.R.D. at 1128. (emphasis original). Thus, because the legal parent and prospective adoptive parent are part of the same family unit, the relinquishment requirement is unnecessary, as it would undermine, rather than promote, family stability. Id.

Additionally, and central to the matter before us, the Adoption Act provides a cause exception to the relinquishment requirement under Section 2901:

Unless the court for cause shown determines otherwise, no decree of adoption shall be entered unless the naturalparent or parents’ rights have been terminated, the investigation required by section 2535 (relating to investigation) has been completed, the report of the intermediary has been filed pursuant to section 2533 (relating to report of intermediary) and all other legal requirements have been met. If all legal requirements have been met, the court may enter a decree of adoption at any time.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901 (emphasis added)

[10] Recently, our Supreme Court clarified the legal framework for those seeking to employ the cause exception. In re Adaption of M.E.L., — Pa. —, 298 A.3d 118 (2023). The process involves two steps:

To satisfy the cause exception to the relinquishment under Section 2901 two things must be established. A party must first show why he or she cannot meet the statutory requirements for adoption. This is consistent with the plain language of the statute, which provides that, "unless the court for cause shown determines otherwise, no decree of adoption shall be entered unless … all other legal requirements have been met." 23 Pa.C.S. § 2901. … Upon this showing, the party may then appeal to the court’s discretion by demonstrating with clear and convincing evidence why the purpose of Section 2711(d) would nevertheless be fulfilled or unnecessary in their case, despite the party’s inability to fulfill the statutory requirements.

M.E.L., 298 A.3d at 127 (cleaned up).

In other words, the Court determined that when a party wants to retain their parental rights in a second-parent adoption, the party must first establish why they cannot meet the statutory requirements for a stepparent adoption. Only then could the party appeal to the court’s discretion to claim that the proposed adoption would satisfy the underlying purpose of the Adoption Act.

In M.E.L., a mother wanted her child to be adopted by her partner. The mother and the partner were not married but were in a committed relationship. In fact, they shared another child together (the subject child’s half-sibling), and the subject child called the partner "dad." The mother claimed that the proposed adoption would satisfy the purpose of the relinquishment requirement, because the adoption would formalize their family unit. However,...