green
Positive treatment
Hot · 58 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 3×
138.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…questions regarding the propriety of an order granting or denying a goal change petition are, of course, discrete inquiries requiring an analysis of interests exquisitely separable from those interests reviewed in questions relating to the involuntary termination of parental rig…
at p. 575
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Int. of: K.T. Apl of: CYF
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
questions regarding the propriety of an order granting or denying a goal change petition are, of course, discrete inquiries requiring an analysis of interests exquisitely separable from those interests reviewed in questions relating to the involuntary termination of parental righ…
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Int. of: K.T. Apl of: K.T.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
questions regarding the propriety of an order granting or denying a goal change petition are, of course, discrete inquiries requiring an analysis of interests exquisitely separable from those interests reviewed in questions relating to the involuntary termination of parental righ…
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Int. of: C.P., Appeal of: T.P.
we state emphatically that this court has never adopted or countenanced a view that incarceration alone is per se evidence of parental incapacity or that it represents appropriate and sufficient grounds for the involuntary termination of parental rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: B.A.N.
Our Supreme Court has defined clear and convincing evidence as “testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in -5- J-S14033-26 issue.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (citing In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: A.K., Appeal of: J.K.
The right to “raise one’s children has long been recognized as one of our basic civil rights[, and] the complete and irrevocable termination of parental rights is one of the most serious and severe steps a court can take.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: R.F., a Minor
Moreover, “the burden is on the child welfare agency . . . to prove that a change in goal would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: C.L.C., Jr., a minor
In re T.L.H., ___ A.3d ___, ___, 2025 PA Super 102 , 2025 WL 1375945 at *9 (Pa.Super. 2025) (quoting In re R.I.S., 614 Pa. 275, 284-87 , 36 A.3d 567, 572-74 (2011)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: T.L.H., Jr., a Minor
(6×)
Because the instant decree did not reference either Section 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) as grounds for termination, we do not address these grounds. - 14 - J-S01002-25 Father’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).14 Standard of Review In reviewing Father’s appeal, we are mindful that “the grounds of termination must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence[]” by the party seeking termination, in order to protect both “a parent’s substantive due process rights” and fundamental parental rights, “while also ensuring the safety and permanency needs of dependent children.” See …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: L.T.R., a Minor
Father maintains that he utilized the “opportunities [that are] available in prison to make sincere efforts to maintain a place of importance in the li[fe] of his … [C]hild[.]” Id. at 14 (quoting In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 574 (Pa. 2011) (plurality)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: W.U., Jr., Appeal of: S.U.
Cf. In re R.I.S., [] 36 A.3d 567, 579 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion) (Baer, J., concurring) (“It is incumbent upon the judicial system to be child-focused.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: B.K., Appeal of: Somerset County CYS
(2×)
In re: RIS, supra, at 572.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: K.H., Appeal of: CYF
Cf. In re R.I.S., [] 36 A.3d 567, 579 ([Pa.] 2011) (plurality opinion) (Baer, J., concurring) (“It is incumbent upon the judicial system to be child-focused.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Adoption of G.W., Appeal of: CYS
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: C.D.J.H, Appeal of: R.S.
In re: R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573-74 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion); cf. S.P., 47 A.3d at 828 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: J.L.D. Appeal of: O.E.
Cf. In re R.I.S., 614 Pa. 275 , 36 A.3d 567, 579 (2011) (plurality opinion) (Baer, J., concurring) (“It is incumbent upon the judicial system to be child-focused.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: A.B., Appeal of: B.B.
Id.; In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Term. of Par. Rights to N.I.G., Appeal of: M.G.
Each involuntary termination case involving an incarcerated person is analyzed on its own facts, “keeping in mind . . . that the child’s need for consistent parental care and stability cannot be put aside or put on hold.” See In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 569 (Pa. 2011), quoting In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79, 84 (Pa. Super. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of: S.L.J.V., a Minor
Id.; R.I.S., [ 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: M.E.B.-H., Appeal of: M.H.
“Questions regarding the propriety of an order granting or denying a goal change petition are … discrete inquiries requiring an analysis of interests exquisitely separable from those interests reviewed in questions relating to the involuntary termination of parental rights.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 575 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: A.G.M., Appeal of N.W.M.
Indeed, the law in Pennsylvania is quite the opposite, and we reiterate the definitive principle that when a parent uses the opportunities that are available in prison to make sincere efforts to maintain a place of importance in the lives of his or her children, incarceration alone will not serve as grounds for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights.” In re R.I.S. & A.LS., 36 A.3d 567, 574 (Pa. 2011) The Court further explained that the court must inquire as to whether the parent had utilized resources at his or her command while in prison In pursuing a close relationship with…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: A.F., Appeal of: H.H.
(2×)
While incarceration alone cannot - 12 - J-A27011-21 form a basis for the termination of parental rights, “[a]n incarcerated parent desiring to retain parental rights must exert him[self] to take and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.” In re R.I.S. 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: G.R., Appeal of: A.R.
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: H.W., Appeal of: M.W.
While the majority relies on In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 569 (Pa. 2011), for the proposition that “a parent’s incarceration, standing alone, cannot constitute proper grounds for the termination of his or her parental rights,” it neglected the trial court’s finding that Father failed to use reasonable efforts to overcome the obstacle of his incarceration.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: H.W., Appeal of: M.W.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Adoption of: L.A.K. Apl of: C.K.
Id. at 13-14 (citing In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011); In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Adoption of: A.L.K. Apl of: C.K.
Id. at 13-14 (citing In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011); In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: R.J., aka, R.R.M., Appeal of: C.J.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: J.D., Appeal of: J.C.
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) [(plurality opinion)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: M.G., Appeal of: J.G.
Our Supreme Court has stated, “the burden is on the child welfare agency . . . to prove that a change in goal would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011). - 16 - J-A19041-21 Father asserts that reunification remained a viable option because there was no evidence that he lacked the capacity to parent.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: D.A.W., Jr., a Minor
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: M.F.G., Appeal of: K.F.
As the Supreme Court stated, “the burden is on the child welfare agency . . . to prove that a change in goal would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: I.C., Appeal of: T.C.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: A.M.K., Appeal of: D.A.K.
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) [(plurality opinion)].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: T.I.-A.B.S., Appeal of: T.I-A.B.S.
Our Supreme Court has defined clear and convincing evidence as “testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (2011) (citing In re Adoption of Atencio, [ 539 Pa. 161 ,] 650 A.2d 1064 (1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: A.L., a Minor
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) ____________________________________________ 5 On June 4, 2021, CYS and the GAL filed a joint brief arguing that this Court should affirm the trial court Order. 6 Although Father does not specifically reference sections 2511(a)(1) or (2) in his Concise Statement and Statement of Questions Involved portions of his brief, we find his issue encompasses both of those sections, which he has discussed in the Argument section of his brief. -6- J-S20032-21 (plurality).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: T.L.H., Appeal of: D.L.W.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: R.L.T., Appeal of: T.A
Id.; R.I.S., [ 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: M.A.M., Appeal of: A.D.
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) [(plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: M.R.O., Appeal of: M.W.
Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: L.L., Appeal of: R.L.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: L.L., Appeal of: C.R.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: A.Y., Appeal of: L.M.Y.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 , 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: T.L.K., a Minor
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of J.E.R., Appeal of: J.R.
Moreover, “the burden is on the child welfare agency . . . to prove that a change in goal would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: H.N.A., Appeal of: D.L.S.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of: J.G., Appeal of: J.G.
Moreover, “the burden is on the child welfare agency . . . to prove that a change in goal would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: S.R.A., Appeal of: A.M.A.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: M.L.K., Appeal of: N.S.K.
Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adoption of: H.R.D., Appeal of: WCCB
Id.; In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Int. of: C-A., M., a Minor
Id.; [In re:] R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) [(plurality opinion)].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KELLY BUICK, INC., Kelly Buick, Inc., t/a, a/k/a, d/b/a, Kelly Buick-GMC, Kelly Management Corporation
v.
Lauren H. KNOWLES and Her Parents John and Dianne Knowles as Agents and Power of Attorney on Her Behalf, and Ian Tough, Margit Kinard, V.A.U.L. Trust
v.
Lauren H. KNOWLES and Her Parents John and Dianne Knowles as Agents and Power of Attorney on Her Behalf, and Ian Tough, Margit Kinard, V.A.U.L. Trust
No. 64 EM 2011.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Oct 31, 2011.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 31st day of October, the Petition for Review is DENIED.