In the Interest of: W.B. III, a Minor
This text of In the Interest of: W.B. III, a Minor (In the Interest of: W.B. III, a Minor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S07016-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: W. B. III, A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: J.A. AND E.A., : : : : : No. 1577 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-35-DP-0000069-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: J.A. AND E.A. : : : : : No. 1578 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-35-DP-0000070-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.A. AND E.A. : : : : : : No. 1579 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-35-DP-0000019-2021
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J. J-S07016-25
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 05, 2025
In this dependency proceeding, J.A. and E.A. (“Grandparents”) appeal
pro se from orders denying their motion to intervene and their motion to
recuse. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In November 2022, Lackawanna County Office of Youth and Family
Services (“OYFS”) removed W.B., III, K.B., and L.B. (collectively, “Children”)
from the care of their natural parents. Children were placed in foster care. The
removal occurred after police received a phone call from what sounded like a
child crying and grunting in the home. Children were adjudicated dependent
in January 2023 and have remained in care since that time.
Grandparents filed an emergency motion in August 2024 seeking to
intervene for custody of Children. Grandparents also submitted a motion to
recuse the trial judge.1 The court denied the motions. See Orders, filed
9/5/24.2 This appeal followed.
Grandparents raise 14 issues in the “Questions Involved” section of their
appellate brief. However, Grandparents’ Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement only
challenges the orders denying the motion to intervene and the motion to
recuse. Indeed, their notice of appeal indicates that they are only appealing
____________________________________________
1 The motion to recuse does not appear on the docket so it is unclear if it was
properly filed.
2 Pa.R.Civ.P. 236 notice was not entered on the docket until September 19,
2024. The October 15, 2024 appeals were therefore timely.
-2- J-S07016-25
from those orders. Thus, save for those two issues, all other issues are waived.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
We first address Grandparents’ motion to intervene. Whether a person
has standing to participate in dependency proceedings is a question of law. In
re S.H.J., 78 A.3d 1158, 1160 (Pa.Super. 2013). We therefore “apply a
plenary scope of review, and our standard of review is de novo.” Id.
Intervention is properly allowed only if the movant has standing. See
In re J.S., 980 A.2d 117, 122 (Pa.Super. 2009). Standing in dependency
proceedings is limited to three classes of persons: “(1) the parents of the
juvenile whose dependency is at issue; (2) the legal custodian of the juvenile
whose dependency is at issue; or[;] (3) the person whose care and control of
the juvenile is in question.” In re S.H.J., 78 A.3d at 1160 (quoting In re L.C.,
II, 900 A.2d 378, 381 (Pa.Super. 2006)) (alteration in original).
In In re L.C. II, a grandmother appealed from an order finding she
lacked standing to participate in the proceeding at which her grandson was
adjudicated dependent. 900 A.2d at 379. The child had lived with his
grandmother for 14 years until the court granted legal and physical custody
of him to his mother. Id. The Indiana County Children and Youth Services
(“ICCYS”) later filed a dependency petition and placed child into the legal care,
custody, and control of ICCYS. Id. at 380. The grandmother sought
permission to participate in the child’s hearing to adjudicate dependency, and
the trial court denied her request. Id. The grandmother appealed, and this
Court affirmed. We concluded that the grandmother did not have standing to
-3- J-S07016-25
participate in the hearing. Id. at 382. We noted that at time of the
adjudicatory hearing, the child was in the legal and physical custody of his
mother – not his grandmother – and “[i]f the trial court had determined that
he w[as] not a dependent child, he would have been returned to the custody
of [his m]other.” Id. (emphasis removed). We thus found that the
grandmother did not satisfy any of the criteria to qualify as a party to a
dependency hearing because “she was not the parent or the legal custodian
of the juvenile whose dependency was at issue[] and her care and control of
the juvenile were not in question.” Id.
Here, like in In re L.C. II, Grandparents do not fall within any of the
foregoing definitions of a “party.” They are not Children’s parents or legal
custodians. Grandparents are also not the people whose care and control is at
issue. Prior to the declaration of dependency, Children were in the custody of
their natural parents. They were subsequently placed in the custody of OFYS.
Grandparents did not have custody of Children at the time Children were
placed in foster care. This Court has held consistently that individuals in
Grandparents’ position do not have standing to intervene in dependency
proceedings. See e.g., id.; In re D.S., 979 A.2d 901, 905 (Pa.Super. 2009)
(holding that grandmother lacked standing in dependency action because she
did not fall into any of the categories which would grant her status as a
“party”; children were removed from mother’s care, grandmother did not have
legal custody of children, and grandmother’s care and control of children were
not at issue); In re S.H.J., 78 A.3d at 1161 (affirming order that denied
-4- J-S07016-25
maternal aunt’s petition to intervene in dependency proceeding because she
lacked standing as she did not belong to one of the three enumerated
categories with standing in dependency); In re J.S., 980 A.2d at 122-23
(finding that intervention was improperly granted to foster parents in
dependency action because they did not meet the definition of a “party” and
therefore lacked standing). The trial court therefore did not err in denying
Grandparents’ motion to intervene as they lacked standing to participate in
Children’s dependency proceedings.
Grandparents next contend that the court erred in denying their motion
to recuse the trial judge. After the filing of the instant appeal, the trial judge
sua sponte recused herself from further proceedings in this case. See Order,
filed 1/7/25. Grandparents’ second issue is therefore moot. See In Re D.A.,
801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.Super. 2002) (en banc) (“An issue can become moot
during the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in the facts of
the case or due to an intervening change in the applicable law”) (citation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of: W.B. III, a Minor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-wb-iii-a-minor-pasuperct-2025.