Grandparents face tighter custody standing rules

Summary#

Pennsylvania SB 1509 would amend Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, including sections 5325 and 5328 on child custody. Its stated aim, reflected in its title, is to further set rules for who may seek partial or supervised physical custody and for factors courts consider. The bill is introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect in 60 days.

  • A parent or grandparent of a deceased parent would have to meet three conditions to seek partial or supervised custody: prove by clear and convincing evidence that the surviving parent or guardian denied all access to the child; show the child lived with the applicant for at least six consecutive months and was then removed by a parent or guardian; and show the applicant had not previously put the child at risk through abuse, neglect, drug or alcohol abuse, or incapacity.
  • An action under that route would have to be filed within six months after the child’s removal.
  • The bill’s text continues to provide other standing routes for grandparents or great-grandparents, including when the child lived with them for at least 12 consecutive months before removal by the parents. It also updates references to these routes in the custody-factor rules.
  • The bill does not itself award custody. It concerns who may bring a case for partial or supervised physical custody; a court still decides whether to award custody.
  • The bill says the amended standing rule applies to proceedings begun before, on, or after its effective date.

What it means for you#

  • Parents and grandparents of a deceased parent: To bring a case through that route, you would have to meet all three new conditions. A parent’s or guardian’s limit on your access, by itself, would not establish standing.
  • Surviving parents or guardians: The bill would set additional conditions a deceased parent’s relatives must meet before they can bring this type of custody case. The text also says a parent may petition to modify or end an order made through that route; the court must then decide whether the person awarded custody met the standing requirements when the case was filed.
  • Other grandparents and great-grandparents: The bill’s text retains other routes, including one based on a child living with a grandparent or great-grandparent for at least 12 consecutive months before removal by the parents, with an action filed within six months.
  • Families in pending cases: The bill says its amendment applies to cases that began before its effective date as well as later cases. It does not explain how the new requirements would be applied to a case already underway.

Money#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not state a cost estimate or provide funding.
  • It does not set a fee or fine.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “all access,” “placed the child at risk,” or the listed forms of risk, such as “incapacity.”
  • It does not explain what evidence or process a court would use to decide whether all access was denied or whether the applicant previously put the child at risk.
  • The supplied material does not include the current version of the amended statutes. The bill text shows the proposed wording and some deleted language, but I could not independently verify the full current-law baseline.
  • The bill does not explain how its new requirements would apply to cases already underway, despite saying the amendment applies to proceedings begun before its effective date.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to limit when relatives of a deceased parent can bring a partial- or supervised-custody case against a surviving parent or guardian.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that it requires a history of substantial caregiving—six months living with the child—before those relatives can use this route.
  • Requiring clear and convincing evidence of denied access, and excluding applicants who previously put the child at risk in specified ways, could be seen as safeguards for the child and surviving parent.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill’s key terms are undefined, leaving important questions about access, risk, and incapacity to be resolved by courts.
  • Requiring proof that the surviving parent or guardian denied all access could make standing difficult to establish, even where contact has been sharply limited.
  • The six-month residence requirement and six-month filing deadline may be hard to meet in some circumstances; the bill does not provide exceptions.
  • Applying the amendment to proceedings already begun could affect cases that were filed under the prior wording. The bill does not explain how that transition would work.