Adopted birth child in mother pennsylvania searching
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. The factual background of this case as averred in the Complaint for Custody and the Petition to Intervene and Stay, as well as in the affidavit attached thereto, is as follows. The proposed adoptive children, Melanie Hess and Matthew Hess, whose custody is in issue in the present case, are a sister and brother who at the time of the filing of the complaint for custody in this case were five and four years old respectively.
They also have four other siblings who are not involved in the present proceedings. During their lives, Melanie and Matthew, the natural parents of Melanie and Matthew, as well as the other four siblings of Melanie and Matthew, lived with their grandparents, the appellants herein, for various periods of time because the natural parents had difficulty in obtaining suitable housing for themselves and their six children.
During much of this time, the grandmother was the primary caretaker of all of the children. In June of , the natural parents advised the grandparents that they had found suitable housing, and therefore removed all six children from the grandparents' home. The grandparents then worked with Children and Youth, and were granted custody of three of the children not including the two involved in this case in October So long as the other three children remained in custody of Children and Youth, the grandparents took the three children in their custody to visit with their siblings regularly.
In July , Melanie and Matthew were returned to their natural parents, and in December , the sixth child was placed in custody of the grandparents. Upon learning of this, the grandparents contacted Children and Youth and obtained physical custody of Melanie and Matthew. One day shortly thereafter, the natural father of the children said that he was going to take Melanie and Matthew out for breakfast. Upon learning this fact, the grandparents contacted the Agency and advised it of their willingness and ability to care for Melanie and Matthew, "as a family together with their sisters," but the Agency refused even to discuss the children with the grandparents and the children were never returned to them.
Instead, the natural parents voluntarily relinquished their parental rights to Melanie and Matthew. A decree terminating their parental rights was entered pursuant to 23 Pa. When the grandparents, who by this time had complete legal and physical custody of the siblings of Melanie and Matthew, learned that a notice of intent to adopt had been filed, they filed the instant Complaint for Custody and Petition to Intervene and Stay the adoption proceedings. The Agency filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and alleged that the grandparents lacked the capacity to sue.
In sustaining the preliminary objections and ordering the complaint and petition to be dismissed with prejudice, the trial court held that the grandparents are not parties in interest in the adoption proceedings, and therefore have no right to appear during the pendency of the adoption proceedings and demand custody or visitation. The grandparents have appealed from this order. Emphasis in original.
Applying this standard to the present case, we conclude that it was an abuse of discretion not to grant the Petition to Intervene and Stay and to dismiss summarily the Complaint for Custody without a hearing on the basis that the grandparents have no right to file such a complaint or petition once a notice of intent to adopt has been filed. The trial court's dismissal of the Complaint for Custody as well as the Petition to Intervene and Stay was based on the conclusion that appellants had no right to intervene in the adoption proceedings or interfere with them, by filing a separate Complaint for Custody, because the rights of the children's parents had been terminated.
Intervention by a party shall be permitted however, if "such person could have joined as an original party in the action or could have been joined therein. Our scope of review of an order granting or denying a petition to intervene is limited, and we will reverse the trial court's decision only where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. The Adoption Act makes clear that the natural parents whose rights have been terminated may not participate in the adoption proceedings and do not need to receive notice of the adoption proceedings.
However, the Adoption Act does not preclude other relatives of the child from participating in adoption proceedings after the rights of the child's parents have been terminated and before a final decree of adoption has been entered.
Nor does it preclude other relatives from seeking to enforce rights they may have in connection with the child. On the contrary, a statute expressly provides that biological, or non-biological, grandparents continue to have the right to seek partial custody and visitation with a grandchild in certain circumstances after the parents' rights have been terminated and until the child is adopted.
Rights of Birth Parents After a Pennsylvania Adoption
See 23 Pa. The Adoption Act also not only does not prohibit biological relatives from filing a petition for adoption after parental rights have been terminated, but expressly excuses certain biological relatives, including grandparents, from the requirement of filing a "Report of Intention to Adopt" when they have custody of the biologically-related child whom they want to adopt.
Thus, while the Adoption Act completely and irrevocably severs any legal relationship between the parent and child, the Act does not necessarily sever the relationship between the child and relatives of the child other than the child's natural parents. By including the phrase "such other persons as the court shall direct," the legislature manifested its intent that there would be some circumstances in which the court should order notice of adoption proceedings to persons other than those required to give their consent under the Act. Such a construction of the Adoption Act is required by the Statutory Construction Act which directs that we are to give effect to all words in a statute, 1 Pa.
Both the Agency and the trial court have taken the position that the appellants have no interest whatsoever in the present case and that any ideas which appellants might have concerning the best interests of the children can be ignored. However, the concept that an agency alone can determine, with unfettered discretion, what it perceives to be the best interests of a child in its custody while disregarding assertions by others of different "best interests" of the child, and that it is appropriate for the court summarily to refuse to hear and consider claims concerning the best interests of a child where adoption proceedings are pending in its court, is contrary to the law of this Commonwealth.
In Matter of Adoption of Sturgeon, Pa. Sturgeon involved contemporaneous claims for adoption of a child by two different pairs of prospective adoptive parents, the Scotts and the Becks, both of which had been foster parents for the child, as selected by the Clearfield County Children and Youth Services who had legal custody of the child. The Becks, however, who had been given physical custody of the child by the Agency at this time, refused to relinquish physical custody to the Agency. Among various other petitions and pleadings which they filed, the Becks then filed both a petition for adoption and a petition for custody in Venango County, asserting that the child's best interests were to remain with the Becks.
The Venango County Court, following hearings, entered an order awarding custody of the child to the Becks, but postponed the resolution of the Becks' adoption petition pending the appeal from the Venango County court's order awarding custody to the Becks. On appeal, the court noted that the case had to be considered as an adoption case, and not a custody case. To that end, the court stated,.
Sturgeon, Id. Superior Ct. The Court affirmed the Venango County court's order stating:. Thus, this Court's decision in Faust v. Messinger, Pa. In Faust, a grandmother filed a petition for custody and a petition to intervene nunc pro tunc in the adoption proceedings of her grandchild one-and-one-half years after the adoption had been decreed. The court denied the petition to intervene and the custody petition.
However, at the time the adoption proceedings had been pending, the court, through no apparent fault of its own, had been entirely unaware of the grandmother and her assertion of the best interests of the child. By the time that the court first learned of the grandmother's interests, the court had already fully satisfied its responsibility to determine the best interests of the child based on all the information known to be available to it when the decision was made. In the present case, however, a decree of adoption has not yet been entered, and only a notice of intent to adopt has been filed.
Therefore, just as in Sturgeon, when the Commonwealth in the person of the Lancaster County Orphans' Court and the Lancaster County Family and Children's Services assumed the custody of Melanie and Matthew upon the termination of the parental rights of the children's natural parents, the Commonwealth, through both the court and the Agency, assumed the awesome and profound responsibility to use their powers in the BEST interests of the children.
It is not sufficient that they determine what would be adequate for the children, or what might be reasonable for them. Even a determination of what would be good for the children would fall short of the Commonwealth's obligation.
Nothing less than a determination of the BEST interests of the children will discharge the Commonwealth from its weighty responsibility to them, and the "BEST interest" standard can only be applied, as the Court emphasized in Sturgeon, on "full facts elicited during hearings in which all pertinent facts are placed before the court.
In the present case, the appellants have averred in their petition for a stay and in their custody petition that they contacted the Agency, before any notice of intent to adopt was filed, to advise them that they wanted to visit with Melanie and Matthew and that they were willing and able to care for the children. They have also averred that the Agency refused to discuss the placement of the children with them, refused to disclose where the children were staying, and refused to meet with them.
The appellants have also averred that it is in the best interest of the children that they be placed with the appellants, who have legal and physical custody of all of Melanie and Matthew's siblings, and with whom Melanie and Matthew have lived for perhaps as long as four and one-half years. Aside from the bald assertion that the natural parents of the children, whose parental rights have been terminated, expressed to the Agency that they did not want the children to be placed with their maternal grandmother, there is nothing in the record to indicate why the Agency would not even discuss with the grandparents the possibility of placement with them particularly in light of the fact that they had custody of the siblings of the children involved here.
In addition, the record does not show that the Agency provided the court with any information from which the Court could review the decision of the Agency to have nothing whatsoever to do with the grandparents who have always asserted that the best interests of the children is contrary to the Agency's determination of the best interests of the children.
Finally, biological parents' consent to adoption is not required if a court has terminated their parental rights. All but three states New York, Idaho and Oregon specify when a birth parent may provide consent. There may be waiting periods or other time-related rules for giving consent:. In most states, consent for an adoption occurs with a notarized, written statement or an appearance before a judge.
Some states also require that birth parents receive counseling, be provided with an explanation of their rights, or be given access to an attorney.
If custody was granted to an adoption agency, an official at the agency may be required to sign an affidavit of consent. Otherwise, most states treat underage birth parents the same as adult birth parents. Once a parent gives consent to an adoption, it can be very difficult to go back. In all states except Massachusetts and Utah , a birth parent may revoke his or her consent to adoption in very limited circumstances.
Consent may be revoked in if the consent was obtained by fraud or coercion, or if it's deemed in the best interests of the child. States have different rules for when and how parental consent to adoption may be revoked:. As you can see, adoption and birth parent rights can be complicated and vary from state to state. Tovah Lyn Name of adoptee before adoption? Christina Maria A. Unknown Birthdate of Adoptee? Pennsylvania City of birth? Philadelphia County of Birth?
Pennsylvania Adoption Reunion Registry | Pennsylvania Adoption Records
Philadelphia Gender of adoptee? Female Name of adoption agency? Lutheran Homes Name of adoption Attorney? Unknown Date of Adoption?
- birth records online by fathers name!
- Adoption Without Father Consent - PA Birth Father Rights.
- track anyone with a mobile phone.
- free information look up phone number;
- mercer county oh property search.
Oct State of Adoption? Pennsylvania City of Adoption? Philadelphia County of Adoption?
Finding Your Birth Parents
Unknown Name of adoptive mother? Ernestine Mcfadden- Lyn Name of adoptive father? Leslie Lyn Name of birth mother? Name of birth father? Unknown Age at Adoption? She was 21 when I was born. My mother was pounds at the time of my birth. She took no prenatal pills during her pregnancy. She had a son in whose first name I believe starts with the letter M. She also had an abortion in Dante is light-skinned with light brown hair like me beween 23 years of age about to be I believe me and him have the same father not quite sure.
I know my father is 6ft tall. Nobody in my family knew that my mother was pregnant with me so to them I do not exist. My mother put me up for adoption when I was born because she already had 2 children and was unable to provide for a second one. My mother has 2 brothers and 1 sister with a learning disability. My mothers parents were seperated when I was born but still were legally married.
Adoption & Birth Certificates and Records – How to Obtain Sealed Documents
I just want to find my family it would mean more to me than anything. She was born in erie PA. It was a closed adoption and the lawyer at the time was Stephanie Domitovich. My half sister was adopted out two days after she was born. My biological dad is Joseph Peplinksi. He weighed 7lbs 5. I have only TWO cousins and he is the one I can not find. My other cousin lives in Indiana and her name is Debbie. My name is Lisa and I was born in October He was adopted out at birth to a wonderful Christian couple who can not have children of their own.
His name is Mikel and he is much loved. God Bless you! Evangelical Hospital living somewhere in S.