Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Limits Grandparent Rights in Custody Cases

Written by: on October 18, 2017 | Category: Blog | Tags:

Pennsylvania law allows grandparents standing (capacity to sue) to file for periods of partial custody of their grandchildren in specific situations. Pennsylvania domestic relations laws stipulate a list of circumstances when grandparents can file for custody. Prior to September of 2016, one of those circumstances included if the parents of the minor child were separated for six months or more. If the parents decided to live separately for at least six months, that fact alone created a window for grandparents to insert themselves in the case and petition for their own periods of custody.

The original intent of the Courts and the Legislature for allowing this window was the concern that if a family was no longer intact, it was more likely that one parent could restrict the other parent’s family from having significant contact with the minor child. While that concern may be reasonable, this window allowed grandparents to involve themselves in custody cases simply due to the separation of the parents, even in situations where the parents were successfully co-parenting.

In the recent case of D.P. v. G.J.P., 146 A.3rd 204 (2016), Paternal Grandparents filed a complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (county court) seeking periods of partial physical custody with their grandchild. While the parents had separated, both parents were in agreement that the minor children were to have no contact with Paternal Grandparents. The only basis for standing in this case was that the parents had been separated for over six months. The parents filed a motion to dismiss the paternal grandparents’ petition, asserting that the law conferring standing to the grandparents based merely on the separation of the parents was a violation of their 14th amendment rights of due process and equal protection.

Courts have long held that parents’ right to control the way in which their children are raised is a fundamental right and as such, is protected by the United States Constitution. The Court of Common Pleas agreed with the parents and found that the law in question violated their constitutional rights. The Court went on to find that the mere fact that parents are separated, should not be enough to overcome the presumption that, “fit parents will act in their children’s best interest.”

This matter was appealed directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review if the Grandparents Statute was invalid as written. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Common Pleas and found that the law allowing grandparents standing to file for custody based solely on parent’s separation is a violation of their constitutional rights since it treats parties differently based on whether they are an intact couple or not. The law as written infringes on parents’ fundamental rights without a compelling state interest to do so.

As a result of D.P. v. G.J.P., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the provision in the Grandparents Statute that allowed standing based solely on the separation of the parties. The balance of the law remains in effect and allows grandparents to file for custody should they meet any of the other provisions in the Statute.

Attorney Kellie Rahl-Heffner counsels families in matters relating to child custody, divorce, legal separation, guardianship, and other family law matters.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog