as temporary; she claims that the agreement “is not worded in such a way that it states it will terminate on that date, rather the wording is such that the guardianship could continue past that date.” Guardian’s Brief at 12. Guardian’s interpretation is patently incorrect. The plain language of the agreement set a maximum length of the guardianship—until August 29, 2014—but provided that it could end sooner by being revoked prior to that end date. Nothing in the agreement contemplates an extension of Guardian’s appointment beyond August 29, 2014. Thus, the trial court properly construed the agreement as a temporary guardianship. The temporary nature of the guardianship rendered Children’s absence from Texas a temporary absence. M.E.V. v. B.D.V., 57 A.3d 126, 133 (Pa. Super. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Under our definition of “home state,”
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that the state police is a state agency holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution recognizing that a foster parent may attain the status of psychological parent when the relationship is not temporary in duration and exists with the consent and encouragement of a childs legal parent or guardian holding that absence from prior state was temporary during the time it was contemplated that the parent and child would return to the other state