‘When a statute creates a cause of action and designates who may sue, the issue of standing becomes interwoven with that of subject matter jurisdiction. Standing then becomes a jurisdictional prerequisite to an action.”
How later courts described this case
- ‘When a statute creates a cause of action and designates who may sue, the issue of standing becomes interwoven with that of subject matter jurisdiction. Standing then becomes a jurisdictional prerequisite to an action.”
- “The intentions of the [foster parents] are of absolutely no moment where the natural [parent] has not consented to the adoption and more importantly, has not even expressed a desire to permanently place the child with another party.”
- insufficient evidence of agreement for permanent placement to establish element of in loco paren-tis status
- “The power of a court to review subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a proceeding is found in [Rule 1032(b)].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by In re Adoption of Z.S.H.G., 34 A.3d 1281 (2011)
748 A.2d 223, 228 (Pa.Super. 2000), overruled on other grounds, In re Adoption of Z.S.H.G., 34 A.3d 1283, 1287-89
The opinion
OLSZEWSKI, J„
Concurring.
¶ 1 While I JOIN the majority’s disposition of this case, I write separately to emphasize two points. First, I am not prepared to determine from the record before me that the DeCostros improperly expedited the adoption process. Second, I wish to express my discomfort with the result in this case. Our decision removes W.C.K. from a stable home and places him back in the care of Mother, who may or may not be unfit. While either Children and Youth Services or Kiefer may have had standing to pursue termination of Mother’s parental rights, the DeCostros certainly did not. I am sympathetic to the DeCostros’ attachment to W.C.K., but must insist that parties seeking termination follow the prescribed procedure. I therefore concur.