In Pennsylvania, grandparents can seek intervention primarily through dependency cases, particularly when a child is determined to be dependent due to parental incapacity, neglect, or other serious issues. This legal avenue is outlined in the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act and related statutes. Bruce Hexter filed a Petition for Grandparent Intervention in this case. He did NOT file for grandparent visitation, yet this case is being treated as if he did. There is a stark difference in the legal requirements for each of these filings.
Key Points on Legal Standing for Intervention.
- Dependency Requirement:
- Grandparents can intervene in a dependency case if the child is placed in the custody of the state or if the parents are unable to care for the child. This typically involves situations where there are allegations of abuse, neglect, or other significant parental issues.
In Sara’s case there is no dependency case. This is a requirement to establish standing for a grandparent intervention. Since this required prerequisite did not occur, the petition filed by Attorney Harshberger should immediately have been thrown out by Judge Menges.
- Formal Petition:
- Grandparents must file a petition in the appropriate dependency court. They need to demonstrate that they have a significant relationship with the child and that their involvement is in the child’s best interests.
In Sara’s case there was never a petition filed with the dependency court. The filing was filed in family court. Which is an inappropriate venue to an intervention. Bruce simply claimed that he believes one day she may not let him see the children. He presented absolutely no evidence of ever having a relationship with the children. He only made a claim that was corroborated by a convicted child sex offender, Kristoffer “Rusty” Hexter. He was also previously convicted of child endangerment of Sara’s children. He thought that it was a good idea to leave two toddlers alone to go to a bar. His claim that it was only for a few minutes is blaringly inaccurate as he would not have been convicted of a crime if that were true.
- Best Interests of the Child:
- The court will consider factors related to the child’s welfare, including the nature of the grandparent-grandchild relationship and the potential impact of the grandparent’s involvement on the child’s stability and emotional wellbeing.
When Judge Menges interviewed Sara’s daughter, who is unrelated to Bruce, she disclosed abuse at the hands of K. Hexter and expressed an extreme aversion to having any contact with either Kristoffer, or Bruce Hexter. This was disregarded and the visitation with Bruce was forced, but a no contact order was issued for Kristoffer. Judge Menges allowing this petition to move forward by the request of a convicted child sex offender, that is not allowed to contact one of the children, cannot be reasonably argued that this is the best interest of these children.
- Evidentiary Hearing Process:
- A hearing will be conducted where the grandparents can present their case to prove they meet the requirements for standing. The court will evaluate all evidence presented, to determine if the case can move to trial. This is when Bruce would have presented evidence to PROVE a dependency case and substantial relationship with the children, not just claim he had one. There was never a claim made for Sara’s unfitness and there was never a dependency case. So even if Bruce could prove a relationship, it is not enough to determine standing.
This required hearing never occurred. Judge Menges skipped over this and moved right to a pretrial hearing where he stated he was going to give “Pop Pop” something. This was determined prior to hearing even one bit of evidence in the custody trial. This shows predetermined bias in favor of “Pop Pop.” In this hearing Judge Menges stated that Bruce had standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 ONLY. The problem is the petition for intervention that was filed required standing to be met under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5324. Standing under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5325 is for grandparent visitation. This petition has never been filed. So not only was standing improperly applied for the incorrect petition, the requirements cannot be met for either.
§ 5324. Standing for any form of physical custody or legal custody.
The following individuals may file an action under this chapter for any form of physical custody or legal custody:
(1) A parent of the child.
Bruce is not a parent
(2) A person who stands in loco parentis to the child.
Bruce has never been in loco parentis. In loco parentis means someone caring for a child as if they were the parent
(3) A grandparent of the child who is not in loco parentis to the child:
(i) whose relationship with the child began either with the consent of a parent of the child or under a court order
Sara’s daughter is not the child of the convicted child sex offender Kristoffer Hexter who gave ‘permission”
(ii) who assumes or is willing to assume responsibility for the child; and
(iii) when one of the following conditions is met:
(A) the child has been determined to be a dependent child under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to juvenile matters);
The children are not now are dependents, nor are they at risk of being a dependent.
(B) the child is substantially at risk due to parental abuse, neglect, drug or alcohol abuse or incapacity; or
The children are not at risk, nor are they at risk under Sara’s care. They have been proven to be at risk under the care of Kristoffer Hexter, who is the one that “consented.” Kristoffer has twice been convicted of crimes involving children. One for these children and another for an unrelated child
(C) the child has, for a period of at least 12 consecutive months, resided with the grandparent, excluding brief temporary absences of the child from the home, and is removed from the home by the parents, in which case the action must be filed within six months after the removal of the child from the home.eh
The children have never lived with Bruce
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), an individual who establishes by clear and convincing evidence all of the following:
(i) The individual has assumed or is willing to assume responsibility for the child.
(ii) The individual has a sustained, substantial and sincere interest in the welfare of the child. In determining whether the individual meets the requirements of this subparagraph, the court may consider, among other factors, the nature, quality, extent and length of the involvement by the individual in the child’s life.
No evidence was presented, nor where any of the requirements met. This petition should have never proceeded.
(iii) Neither parent has any form of care and control of the child.
Sara had sole legal and physical custody at the time of the filing. This is the part that states a dependency case is required.
§ 5325. Standing for partial physical custody and supervised physical custody.
In addition to situations set forth in section 5324 (relating to standing for any form of physical custody or legal custody), grandparents and great-grandparents may file an action under this chapter for partial physical custody or supervised physical custody in the following situations:
(1) where the parent of the child is deceased, a parent or grandparent of the deceased parent may file an action under this section;
Neither parent in this case is deceased
(2) where the relationship with the child began either with the consent of a parent of the child or under a court order and where the parents of the child:
(i) have commenced a proceeding for custody; and
(ii) do not agree as to whether the grandparents or great-grandparents should have custody under this section;
There was no longer an open custody case in Sara’s case when Judge Menges received the petition. After Kristoffer was sentenced Sara was given full legal and physical custody. So Kristoffer’s disagreement held no weight of law. It is important to note that Bruce never even asked to see the children. So, he only assumed that there would be a disagreement.
or
(3) when the child has, for a period of at least 12 consecutive months, resided with the grandparent or great-grandparent, excluding brief temporary absences of the child from the home, and is removed from the home by the parents, an action must be filed within six months after the removal of the child from the home.
Not only did the children never live in the home with Bruce, but there was a period of 8 months of refusal to negotiate visitation outside a court order, after Kristoffer’s incarceration.
Conclusion
The outlined article clearly demonstrates that Bruce Hexter lacked standing in this case, warranting the dismissal of his petition by Judge Menges. Instead of adhering to the established legal requirements, Judge Menges chose to proceed, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. This decision not only set a concerning precedent but also raised questions about the adherence to legal principles in this matter.