foster parents have neither permanent custody of their foster children nor an expectation of permanent custody, the decision of a legal custodian regarding custody does not cause the type of direct and substantial injury necessary for standing. Id. at 272, 673 A.2d at 939. According to appellees, since appellants are foster parents, G.C. deprives them of standing to challenge Juvenile Court’s removal Order. Initially, we note that while seven of eight judges in G.C. agreed that a remand for further proceedings was necessary, the Court split evenly on the issue of standing. Thus, while the Opinion operated to affirm the trial court’s determination of standing, it has no precedential authority. See Chesler v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 302 Pa.Super. 356, 360, 448 A.2d 1080, 1082 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Of course, the split decision in G.C. also
recognizing a split of authority recognizing circuit split recognizing that a split decision carries no weight as precedent recognizing split among district courts recognizing split