PA Superior Court Rules Mother Cannot Have the Child's Godmother Adopt the Child Unless Mother Relinquishes her Parental Rights

Mother wanted her child to be adopted by the child’s Godmother. Mother was single. Godmother was married to her husband, the child’s Godfather, and they shared their own child. Godmother and Godfather lived 30 minutes from Mother. Mother intended for she and the child’s Godmother to co-parent the child. Mother would not relinquish her parental rights. Father, who was estranged from Mother, consented to the relinquishment of his parental rights so that Godmother could adopt. However, the Orphans Court denied the Petition for Adoption on the grounds that it did not comply with the Adoption Act. Mother appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in In re Adoption of J.M.B., 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 14 (January 22, 2024), affirmed, i.e., agreed with the Orphan’s Court.

The Superior Court explained that although any person may adopt, the Adoption Act establishes procedural and substantive requirements necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Adoption Act. For an adoption to occur, the parental rights of both parents must be terminated. The purpose for this requirement is that the adoption should establish a new family. There is an exception to this relinquishment requirement. In stepparent adoptions, only one parent must relinquish his or her parental rights. The parent who has remarried may retain his or her parental rights so that his or her spouse, who is not the parent of the child, may adopt the child.

There is a “for cause” exception to the above rules. In In re Adoption of M.E.L., 298 A.3d 118 (Pa. 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently clarified the “for cause” process. In short, to satisfy the “for cause” exception to the relinquishment requirement, a party must: (1) show why he or she cannot meet the statutory requirements; and (2) demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the proposed adoption facilitates a new parent-child relationship between the child and the adoptive parent and protects the integrity and stability of the new family unit.

In the past, and before same sex marriage was legalized in Pennsylvania, same sex couples successfully used and satisfied the “for cause” exception to convince courts to approve second parent adoptions even though the adopting parent was technically not a stepparent because he or she was not married to the natural parent who was retaining his or her parental rights. Once same sex marriage was legalized in Pennsylvania, same sex couples could marry and no longer needed to pursue adoptions through the “for cause” exception because they could pursue stepparent adoptions.

Because of the success of same sex couples using the “for cause” exception to the parental relinquishment requirement unmarried heterosexual couples started to try to use the “for cause” exception for second parent adoptions. Typically, the natural mother would try to use the “for cause” exception to have her boyfriend adopt her child. Some Orphan’s Court judges were approving these types of adoptions. But, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in In re Adoption of M.E.L., 298 A.3d 118 (Pa. 2023) issued an opinion that all but closes the door on these types of adoptions. See my blog on this decision here: https://www.scaringilaw.com/blog/2023/july/the-pa-supreme-court-all-but-forecloses-adoption/

In the instant case, Mother met the first prong of the test – she and Godmother could not marry because Godmother was already married, and bigamy, at least at present, is still illegal in Pennsylvania. So, then the Court analyzed whether the proposed adoption satisfies the second prong of the test, which is whether it facilitates a new parent-child relationship between the child and the adoptive parent and protects the integrity and stability of the new family unit. Here, the Mother did not meet her burden by clear and convincing evidence. The Orphan’s Court pointed out that Mother and Godmother did not intend to live together, combine their families, and raise the child as part of a new family unit.

Further, the Court pointed out that Mother and Godmother did not intend to coparent equally. Mother and Godmother explained to the Court that Mother would proceed as the sole caregiver, as the child would continue to reside with Mother, and that Godmother would be the emergency backup if and when Mother could parent the child herself, for example, if Mother became ill. The Superior Court explained that this would be a hierarchical and not equal relationship, with Mother retaining essentially sole legal and physical custody of the child, and further demonstrates that Mother and Godmother would continue to operate as parts of separate family units even after the adoption.

If you have questions or concerns about adoption, do not hesitate to contact Scaringi Law at 717-657-7770.