context: 1110 In order for the DeCostros to have stood in loco parentis to W.C.K. they must have assumed parental status through some legally cognizable means, predicated on Mother's consent to an adoptive placement. Clearly, the DeCost-ros do not stand in loco parentis to W.C.K. because Mother never intended to permanently place W.C.K. with either Kiefer or the DeCostros.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 610 A.2d 995, 998
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals
citation_a.sentence: See also In re Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa.Super. 110, 610 A.2d 995, 998 (1992) (stating that the most significant factor in determining whether individuals stand in loco parentis to a child for purposes of section 2512 is whether the party with legal custody intended to permanently place the child with the individuals).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 713 A.2d 639, 643
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother's intent was for the individuals to adopt her child
citation_b.sentence: See Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639, 643 (Pa.Super.1998) (stating that individuals were prospective adoptive parents because the natural mother’s intent was for the individuals to adopt her child).