In the recent case of In re S.J., 584 EDA 2012, heard by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the court implicitly ruled that "permanent legal custody" in a child dependency case does not really mean permanent. Dependency practitioners should keep this nuanced definition of "permanent" in mind when pursuing permanent legal custody of children.
In S.J., the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for a goal change with regard to the child at issue. Specifically, the DHS had ruled out reunification with the father, as the father had not been involved with the case since its inception and had not visited the child or contacted the DHS. Furthermore, the DHS did not believe adoption by the foster mother to be a viable option, as the biological mother still had a bond with the child and the foster mother did not want to adopt. As a result, the DHS advanced the position that the foster mother should be granted permanent legal custody.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
