# In Re: Adopt. of M.R.D. and T.M.D. Appeal of: M.C.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 29, 2016 · 636 Pa. 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835798

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ADOPTION OF M.R.D. and T.M.D., Minor Children. Appeal of M.C., Natural Father
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 636 Pa. 509; 145 A.3d 1117; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1903; 2016 WL 4541129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Saylor, Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835798

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the mother and the maternal grandfather “have not demonstrated that the proposed co-parenting arrangement would create a new family unit or a new parent-child relationship” and that the maternal grandfather’s “pre-existing and continuing close relationship with [t…
- stating that a “petitioning parent must demonstrate that an adoption of the child is anticipated in order for the termination petition to be cognizable”
- holding that the parties seeking to adopt were legally unable to marry and, thus, were excused from satisfying the Adoption Act’s marriage requirement
- holding that the Adoption Act did not permit a grandfather to adopt his daughter’s child without the daughter relinquishing her parental rights

## Opinion text

Justice TODD,
concurring.
The Majority Opinion, which I authored, holds that Grandfather may not, as a matter of law, adopt and co-parent his grandchildren with his daughter, as a prerequisite to the termination of Father’s parental rights. Our decision is dictated by the Pennsylvania Adoption Act and, in particular, by the statutory requirement that, in order to terminate the other parent’s parental rights, a petitioning parent must demonstrate that an adoption of his or her child is contemplated and relinquish his or her parental rights, unless the petitioning parent has a spouse or partner willing to adopt. I write separately, unconstrained by majority authorship, to express my views regarding the current formulation of this requirement. 1
It is clear that the relinquishment requirement for termination was designed to promote two-parent families. However, in the nearly 36 years since this requirement was enacted, the concept of family has evolved — and continues to evolve — in today’s society, and there are situations where, in my view, it is unfair to require a single parent to have a spouse or partner as a prerequisite to seeking the termination of the rights of the child’s other legal, but absent, parent. Indeed, there are many families comprised of only a parent and a child where the single parent is fully capable of raising and providing for his or her child, and where the absent parent provides no benefit to — or worse, is a dark cloud over — the child. While, of course, I am mindful of the legislature’s policymaking role in this area, given that today’s families are not necessarily the traditional nuclear families that were envisioned at the time our adoption laws were initially drafted, I urge the legislature, *537 with continued focus on the best interests of our Commonwealth’s children, to revisit the adoption and relinquishment requirements for termination of parental rights under the Act.
. As members of this Court have previously noted, special concurrences are "somewhat unusual, but not without precedent.” Commonwealth v. King, 618 Pa. 405 , 57 A.3d 607 , 633 n. 1 (2012) (Saylor, J., specially concurring) (collecting cases).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9835798. Public record. Not legal advice.