Opinion
345 MDA 2024 J-A19005-24
08-29-2024
JOAN ALEXIS AND ERIC ALEXIS v. DANIELLE TAYLOR, LISA SOHARA, LISA KANAVY, KELLY ATKINSON AND LACKAWANNA COUNTY OFFICE OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICESAPPEAL OF: JOAN ALEXIS
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 30, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at No(s): 2023-41512
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
JUDGMENT ORDER
PANELLA, P.J.E.
Appellants, Joan Alexis and Eric Alexis, appeal from the Order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on January 30, 2024, which denied and dismissed Appellants' "Emergency Motion to Intervene for Custody/Temporary Custody." The Motion concerned the grandchildren of Appellants ("Grandchildren"). The Motion, filed as a civil action, requested permission to intervene in pending dependency proceedings concerning Grandchildren in the juvenile court of Lackawanna County.
The trial court accurately summarized the history of the case. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/24, at 1-5. Therefore, a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary.
The trial court considered Appellants' Motion and heard oral argument. In its April 29, 2024, opinion, the trial court has aptly reviewed Appellants' claims and disposed of the arguments on the merits. We have reviewed the certified record and the briefs, the relevant law, and the well-written opinion of the Honorable Frank J. Ruggiero. We have determined that the trial court's opinion comprehensively disposes of Appellants' issues on appeal, with appropriate references to the record, and without legal error. Therefore, we affirm on this basis. See id. at 5-11.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LACKAWANNA COUNTY
No. 2023-FC-41512
CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUSTODY
OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.R 1925(a)
RUGGIERO, F.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs/Appellants herein, Joan and Eric Alexis, filed an Emergency Motion to Intervene for Custody/Temporary Custody in the above-captioned action against Defendants, Danielle Taylor, Lisa Sohara, Lisa Kanavy, Kelly Atkinson, and Lackawanna County Office of Youth and Family Services (OYFS) on November 22,2023. An oral argument occurred on Plaintiffs Motion on January 30,2023. Having weighed and considered the relevant evidence submitted, this Court now denies Plaintiffs Motion for the reasons that follow.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter commenced with the filing of Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Intervene for Custody/Temporary Custody of W.B., K.B. and L.B., Grandchildren of Plaintiffs, on November 17,2023. (Emergency Motion to Intervene, filed 11/17/23). Plaintiffs initial motion was denied as the caption did not reflect any ongoing case; therefore, there was no matter to intervene into. (Order, 11/17/23, Ruggiero J.). At the time, the court recognized procedural deficiencies in Plaintiffs' filings and directed Plaintiffs to file a motion into an appropriate, ongoing case or file a separate action in order to raise issues of custody. Id.
Plaintiffs re-filed the Emergency Motion to Intervene on November 22,2023 alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs' grandchildren were inappropriately removed from their care; that Plaintiffs were not informed when a Shelter Care hearing was scheduled/held; that the grandchildren's placements are inappropriate; and that the grandchildren would prefer to be placed with Plaintiffs. (Emergency Motion to Intervene, filed 11/22/23). This Court signed a Rule to Show Cause on Plaintiffs' Motion and scheduled the same for a hearing on January 30, 2024. (Rule to Show Cause. 11/22/23. Ruggiero J.).
A hearing occurred on January 30, 2024, at which time the Court primarily addressed the fact that the Plaintiffs had filed their Petition to a few different docket numbers, including each grandchild's dependency docket number, as well as a family court docket number that Plaintiffs had initiated in November of 2023. (N.T. January 30,2024, pp. 3-4). Additionally, the Court noted that, at the time of the January 30th hearing, Plaintiffs appeal on the aforementioned dependency dockets was pending. Id. at 6. As that was the case, the Court informed Plaintiffs that its duty on the date of said hearing was solely to address the Motion to Intervene and not to comment on the custody of Plaintiffs' grandchildren. Id. at 12. Custody was to be addressed via the pending appeal with the Superior Court on the dependency matters. Id.
Appeals were filed to 72 MDA 2024,73 MDA 2024 and 74 MDA 2024 on January 16, 2024 and were pending through March 4,2024, at which time said appeals were quashed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Once addressed, Plaintiff/Grandmother, having been the only party that appeared on January 30th, argued that the Office of Youth and Family Services removed the subject grandchildren from her and her husband's care in January of 2021 when they had no right to do so. Id. at 15. Plaintiff/Grandmother discussed that the subject grandchildren were taken from them when she took her daughter and son-in-law to Lackawanna County Probation to turn themselves in on outstanding criminal charges. Id. at 16-17. She elaborated that both parents signed their custodial rights over to her, prior to turning themselves in. Id. at 24.
At that point in the January 30,2024 proceeding, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) as well as the Solicitor for the Lackawanna County Office of Youth and Family Services (OYFS) objected to the relevance of Plaintiff/Grandmother's argument. Id. at 17-19. The OYFS Solicitor additionally objected to Plaintiffs' having changed the caption of the dependency dockets, adding specific employees of OYFS as defendants to the action. Id. at 19. The Court then attempted to make it clear to the Plaintiff/Grandmother that this was strictly an issue of procedure and that she needed to provide the Court with the legal reasons for the appropriateness of her filing. Id. at 22.
Plaintiff/Grandmother argued that the primary reason for Plaintiffs' filing was that the subject grandchildren were removed from her custody in January of 2021 when there was never an emergency reason for the Lackawanna County Office of Youth and Family Services to do so. Id. at 23. The Court, again, attempted to focus Plaintiff/Grandmother on the legal reasons for her filing. Id. at 25. Plaintiff/Grandmother emphasized that she is the "closest thing to a mother" these children had as her daughter (the children's biological mother) was deceased. Id. at 25-26. She went on to state that her home is suitable, she suffers from no mental infirmity, that one of the grandchildren has PTSD, and that all of her grandchildren are suffering due to the current arrangement. Id. at 26.
Following Plaintiff/Grandmother's argument, the Office of Youth and Family Services responded that there was already a pending appeal in this matter regarding the dependencies and that Plaintiffs never sought to intervene properly. Id. at 27-28. OYFS further argued that the Plaintiffs did not properly serve their Emergency Motion to Intervene and ultimately requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' motion. Id. at 29. The GAL agreed, stating that, as there was already an appeal pending, other judges currently had jurisdiction over the matter and Plaintiffs' filing was a "dangerous abuse of process." Id. at 30.
When Plaintiff/Grandmother responded to OYFS's argument, she indicated that this matter was really about the termination of parental rights as well as the fact that the subject grandchildren should not have been removed from her custody. Id. at 32-33. The Court again indicated to Plaintiff/Grandmother that those issues speak to the dependencies and not to Plaintiffs' Motion to Intervene. Id.
At the conclusion of the January 30, 2024 hearing, the Court indicated that regarding the issue of temporary custody, it would not disturb any existing custody orders which were on appeal with the Superior Court, as it was without jurisdiction to render a decision on those matters. Id. at 38-39. Further, regarding Plaintiffs Emergency Petition to Intervene, the Court denied said petition. Id. at 39. The Court stated the reasons for said denial as follows: (1) at that time, there was a pending appeal before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania regarding the three subject grandchildren referenced in Plaintiffs' Motion and this Court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to 210 Pa. Code § 1701 and (2) Plaintiffs sought to intervene into a case that didn't exist as they filed a new case and then entered an Emergency Petition to Intervene; therefore, there was nothing to intervene into. Id. at 40-41
The Court additionally addressed that the Plaintiffs publicly filed information about three minors when they filed their motion to a family court docket number, which was inappropriate given the safeguards that are provided under the PA Juvenile Dependency Act as said safeguards are generally put in place to protect the dissemination of information regarding minor children. Id. at 42. As such, the Court sealed the public family court file in an effort to protect both the identities of the minor children and the circumstances which gave rise to the dependency petitions. Id. at 42-43. Following the Court's decision, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on February 29,2024. (Notice of Appeal, filed 2/29/2024). In their Notice of Appeal, Plaintiffs strictly refer to the family court docket number; they reference the subject grandchildren's initials but do not provide the dependency docket numbers as part of their appeal. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
a. The trial court abused its discretion in making the Appellants wait almost three (3) months for an Emergency Motion and giving the Lackawanna County Office of Youth and Family Services (OYFS) sixty-two (62) days to file Answers to the Emergency Motion when the trial court knew that the minor children were suffering in their foster homes.
Plaintiffs/Appellants first argue that the trial court abused its discretion in scheduling the proceeding on their Emergency Motion to Intervene roughly sixty (60) days after it was filed. This Court contends that Appellants' argument is without merit.
"[A] trial court has the inherent authority to regulate the practice before it." In re G.D., 61 A.3d 1031,1041-1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Appeal of Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990)). The only limitations on that authority are statutory or constitutional requirements. Thompson v. Am. Steel & Wire Co., 175 A. 541, 543 (Pa.1934) (citing First Nat7 Bank of Pittsburgh v. Baird, 150 A. 165 (Pa. 1930)). When there are no specific statutory rules providing for the procedural disposition of a motion... the [c]ourt ha[s] the authority to choose a procedure which it believe[s] would fairly and efficiently address the concerns of... [the] motion. In re G.D. at 1041-1042 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In the instant matter, Appellants titled their Motion 'Emergency Motion to Intervene for Custody/Temporary Custody of W.B., K.B. and L.B., Grandchildren of Plaintiffs.' (Emergency Motion to Intervene, filed 11/22/23). Appellants rely on Rule 1133 of the Rules of Juvenile Court, which provides that, "[u]pon the filing of a motion to intervene and after a hearing, the court shall enter an order granting or denying the motion." See Pa. R.J.C.P. No. 1133. Appellants fail to note that said Rule does not provide for a timeline in which a filed Motion must be heard. Id.
The trial court in this matter scheduled Appellants' Motion at the first available time and, in doing so, utilized its discretion to determine that there was no emergency present at the time the Motion was filed. Appellants' grandchildren were already placed in safe and sufficient foster homes through the Lackawanna County OYFS and Petitions for Adoption were not filed at that time. The minor children were not in any danger at the time of Appellants' filing. As that is the case, the Court contends that it was appropriate to schedule the proceedings when it did - at the earliest available time.
Additionally, in its simplest terms, Appellants argue that OYFS was permitted too much time to respond to their Motion. However, it was well within the trial court's discretion to permit OYFS a reasonable time to respond and, since this Court did not find Appellants' motion to be an emergency, it found said time period to be appropriate. Therefore, the Court respectfully asks that it be affirmed on this matter.
b. The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the pleas from the minor children, W.B. and K.B., to talk to the trial court, in severe violation of their constitutional rights.
Although not listed as a numbered paragraph, this Court shall address the allegation listed at the conclusion of paragraph 1 of Appellants' Errors Complained of on Appeal.
Appellants' second contention is that the trial court ignored the pleas of the minor children to address the court; however, this Court disagrees. As will be discussed in subsection (c), this Court did not have jurisdiction over the minor children's dependency matter(s) and Appellants' only filing to the Family Court number was procedurally incorrect, warranting a dismissal of the same. Therefore, there was nothing for this Court to speak to the minor children about and said discussion would likely be best served to occur in conjunction with the minor children's dependency hearings.
c. The trial court erred as a matter of law when it denied the Appellants, when it changed the docket numbers on the day of the trial, at the request of the Attorney for the Office of Youth and Family Services to appear to be filed under the same docket number as another case under appeal and to dismiss the trial because another case with different docket numbers and different defendants clearly appear on the docket sheets of the case at bar.
Said allegation is listed as paragraph 2 in Appellants' Matters Complained of on Appeal.
Appellants third argument is that the trial court changed the docket numbers of the immediate action on the day Appellants appeared before the court; however, that is not the case. At the time of the hearing, it was noted by both this Court and the Solicitor for OYFS that Appellants' filings were made to the minor children's juvenile dependency docket numbers as well as to a family court docket number. (N.T. 1/30/2024, pp. 2-4). The trial court simply noted all of the docket numbers that appeared on Appellants' filing at the time of the proceeding; it did not change said docket numbers.
Additionally, the trial court made it very clear to the Appellants that it was unable to make a decision on Appellants' filings under the juvenile dependency numbers as there was an already pending appeal with the Superior Court under the same. Id. at 33-34,38-39. It is well-understood that "[e]xcept as otherwise prescribed,... after an appeal is taken... the trial court or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter." Pa. R. A. P. § 1701(a) . However, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701(b) indicates that "[a]fter an appeal is taken or review of a quasi judicial order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may:
(1)Take such action as may be necessary to preserve the status quo ...
(2)Enforce any order entered in the matter...
(3)Grant reconsideration of the order which is the subject of the appeal or petition..
(4)Authorize the taking of depositions or the reservation of testimony where required in the interest of justice...
(5)Take any action directed or authorized by an appellate court...
(6)Proceed further in any matter in which a non-appealable interlocutory order has been entered...Pa.R.A.P. g 1701(b)(1)-6).
It is clear to the Court that there is no exception in the immediate matter that would permit the Court to render a decision while the juvenile dependencies were under appeal. Further, said dependencies are under the jurisdiction of another, similarly seated jurist - not before this Court; therefore, this Court contends that it was proper in dismissing Appellants' Motion under said docket numbers.
Regarding the family court docket number, Appellants filed to intervene into a case that didn't exist - one that more properly emanated from pending juvenile dependencies and, moreover, one where the Appellants were already parties themselves. PA ST RCP Rule 2327 indicates that "[a]t any time during the pendency of an action, a person not a party thereto shall be permitted to intervene" provided they meet the remaining statutory requirements of PA ST RCP Rule 2327. Appellants herein filed their motion to a brand-new family court number, to which they were the initiating parties. Further, the caption to which Appellants filed their action didn't exist in any prior court record; the named Defendants on Appellants motion had never been listed as Defendants in any prior case - only on Appellants' Motion to Intervene. As such, their Motion for Intervention was improper and this Court had no choice but to dismiss it.
Appellants further argue in their appeal that the trial court had an opportunity to amend the caption pursuant to Pa St R.C.P. Rule 1018. This Court argues that Appellants misstate the nature of the issue at hand. Appellants' caption is not the problem but rather the fact that there was a pending appeal as well as an improperly filed Motion to Intervene.
As the Court had no choice but to dismiss Appellants' Motion to Intervene under all of the numbers to which it was filed, the Court asks that it be affirmed on this matter. d. The trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the objections of the attorneys to not allow the Appellants to present their evidence in response to the perjury and continued fraud of the Office of Youth and Family Services, in which the Appellants, individually named in their emergency motion.
Said allegation is listed as paragraph number 3 in Appellants' Matters Complained of on Appeal.
Appellants contend that they should have been permitted to present their evidence despite objections raised by counsel. This Court disagrees. Throughout the proceedings on January 30, 2024, counsel for the Office of Youth and Family Services as well as the Guardian ad Litem objected to Appellants' filing as "procedurally improper." (N.T. January 30, 2024, pp. 16-30).
The Court commented on the parties' objections and even permitted the Appellants a chance to respond; however, Appellants failed to present any legally relevant response. The Solicitor for OYFS went on to comment that Appellants' Motion "held no merit" and that it was improperly served pursuant to the Rules of Intervention. Id. at 19-20,29. This Court agreed then and agrees now with the objections stated by counsel at the January 30,2024 proceedings for the reasons detailed in prior subsections of this opinion.
e. The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the trial between the Appellants/Grandparents and the individuals named as Defendants, especially knowing through the testimony that a fraud on the court was occurring.
Said allegation is listed as paragraph number 4 on Appellants' Matters Complained of on Appeal. Paragraph 5 of Appellants' Matters Complained of on Appeal does not list anything more than a factual statement and as such, does not require a response from the court.
Please see this Court's response to subsection (c).
f. The trial court erred as a matter of law in preventing the Appellants/Grandparents the right to Custody of their grandchildren through fraud.
As was discussed at length in prior subsections, pursuant to Pa. R. A. P. § 1701 , this Court lacked the jurisdiction to make any custody determinations due to the pending appeal filed with the Superior Court under the dependency actions. As the matter was on appeal, the minor children's custody remained with the Lackawanna County OYFS and under the jurisdiction of the dependency judge handling said actions.
IV. CONCLUSION
At the conclusion of the January 30,2024 hearing, the Court plainly indicated to the Appellants that their Motion was denied as "[the court] can't decide to allow [Appellants] to intervene into a case that's already on appeal" nor could the Appellants "intervene in a case that doesn't exist." (N.T. January 30,2024, pp. 43). Although this Court certainly acknowledges the Appellants' concern for their grandchildren, Appellants have attempted to intervene in a procedurally inappropriate way. The statutory rules must be followed, whether the Appellants are represented or decide to proceed pro se and, as such, this Court respectfully asks that its decision be affirmed on appeal.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.