Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.green2 sentences2023Id. - 15 - J-A08041-23 At a permanency hearing, a trial court must review the permanency plan of a child and determine whether placement is in the best interests of the child. 2022See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351; see also In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (noting that “the record could have supported a goal change to adoption, as [the c]hild had been in custody for an extended period and [his p]arents had not attained the goals of their [service plan] at the time of the permanency hearing”). - 20 - J-S08020-22 Accordingly, because we conclude that the record does not support the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights to Child involuntarily under Section 2511(a)(2), we reverse the September 17, 2021 decree. | 5 | 12 |
In the Interest of K.C.green2 sentences2021In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some citations omitted and some formatting altered). - 15 - J-S11046-20 Additionally, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) provides, among several other factors that the court considers at a permanency hearing: If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months or the court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made . . . 2020Indeed, “[t]he relationship of parent and child is a status and not a property right, and one in which the state has an interest to protect the best interest of the child.” In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some citations omitted). - 15 - J-S04017-20 Additionally, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) provides, among several other factors that the court considers at a permanency hearing: If the child has been in placement for 15 of the last 22 months or the court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the chil | 2 | 2 |
In Re Adoption of S.E.G.green2 sentences2010Specifically, relying upon this Court's pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court's decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, because *1196 R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four mont 2010Specifically, relying upon this Court's pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court's decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, because *1196 R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four mont | 1 | 3 |
In Re Tameka M.green2 sentences2008In construing section 6351, our Supreme Court noted that “[t]he Juvenile Court maintains a continuing plenary jurisdiction in dependency cases ... and has the power to review the circumstances of dependent juveniles and to question ... the legal custodian, CYS, and the foster parents concerning the condition and the needs of the dependent child.” In re Tameka M., 525 Pa. 348 , 580 A.2d 750, 752 (1990) (emphasis added). ¶21 A review of the record demonstrates that each of the requirements of section 6351(f) was adequately considered and addressed by the trial court. 2008In construing section 6351, our Supreme Court noted that “[t]he Juvenile Court maintains a continuing plenary jurisdiction in dependency cases ... and has the power to review the circumstances of dependent juveniles and to question ... the legal custodian, CYS, and the foster parents concerning the condition and the needs of the dependent child.” In re Tameka M., 525 Pa. 348 , 580 A.2d 750, 752 (1990) (emphasis added). ¶21 A review of the record demonstrates that each of the requirements of section 6351(f) was adequately considered and addressed by the trial court. | 1 | 3 |
In Re AKgreen1 sentence2025See id. at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of: N.M., A Minorgreen1 sentence2024The juvenile court also informed the parties that it was “not going to consider kinship care,” stating, “if I leave her in foster care maybe I get closer to an answer as to what happened instead of moving her to grandmom.”12 These rulings prompted Parents to file several appeals in the Superior Court. 10 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a) (granting the juvenile court authority to enter “orders of disposition best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare” of a dependent child). 11 See id. § 6351(e) (requiring the juvenile court to conduct regular permanency hearings). 12 S | 1 | 1 |
In the Int of: D.C.D./ Appeal of: Clinton Co C&YSgreen1 sentence2024The Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that “the federal government enacted ASFA and related statutes to address the problems of foster care drift and ensure that dependent children are provided permanent homes either through reunification or adoption.” In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 675 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rmggreen1 sentence2023Pennsylvania law “mandate[s] permanency planning such that, ‘when a child is placed in foster care, after reasonable efforts have been made to establish the biological relationship, the needs and welfare of the child require CYS and foster care institutions to work toward termination of parental rights, placing the child with adoptive parents.’” See In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa. Super. 2010). - 32 - J-A19026-23 If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months from the date of a permanency hearing, then the court must determine whether the county agency has filed | 1 | 1 |
In Re Adoption of T.B.B.green1 sentence2021See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a); see also In re Adoption of T.B.B., supra at 394 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of Sweeneygreen1 sentence2020On one occasion, this Court has rejected the notion that a change in goal requires proof by clear and convincing evidence, stating instead that once a child is adjudicated dependent by clear and convincing evidence, modification of the “long-range goal” and “issues of custody and continuation of foster care are determined according to a child’s best interests.” In Interest of Sweeney, 574 A.2d 690, 691 (Pa. Super. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
In The Interest of: K.C., a Minorgreen2 sentences2017See Interest of K.C., 156 A.3d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court abused its discretion at dependency adjudicatory hearing when it applied the standard for permanency hearing, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f), rather than the standard for adjudicatory hearings). -4- J-A25028-17 In Interest of K.C., supra, the trial court’s inquiry at the hearing with regard to whether reasonable efforts were made focused on whether DHS had made reasonable efforts to finalize a placement for K.C. 2017See Interest of K.C., 156 A.3d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court abused its discretion at dependency adjudicatory hearing when it applied the standard for permanency hearing, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f), rather than the standard for adjudicatory hearings). -4- J-A25028-17 In Interest of K.C., supra, the trial court’s inquiry at the hearing with regard to whether reasonable efforts were made focused on whether DHS had made reasonable efforts to finalize a placement for K.C. | 1 | 1 |
In Re MGgreen1 sentence2014In its review of the testimony presented at a permanency hearing, the trial court "is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re M.G., 855 A2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc.green1 sentence2008See eToll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 811 A.2d 10 (Pa.Super.2002) (where clear precedent to resolve issue is lacking, our role as intermediate appellate court requires that we attempt to predict how Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule). | 1 | 1 |
In Re RPgreen1 sentence2008See In the Interest of R.P., 2008 PA Super 196 , 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super.2008). ¶ 3 As required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(3)(ii)(A) and Pa.RJ.OP. 1607(A)(1), the trial court conducted a permanency hearing on October 31, 2007, within thirty days of the adjudication of dependency. 2 ¶4 Melissa Garrick, a CYS caseworker in the placement unit, testified regarding the children’s status and described the recommended goals for each of them. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of R.P.green1 sentence2008See In the Interest of R.P., 2008 PA Super 196 , 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super.2008). ¶ 3 As required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(3)(ii)(A) and Pa.RJ.OP. 1607(A)(1), the trial court conducted a permanency hearing on October 31, 2007, within thirty days of the adjudication of dependency. 2 ¶4 Melissa Garrick, a CYS caseworker in the placement unit, testified regarding the children’s status and described the recommended goals for each of them. | 1 | 1 |
In Re JCgreen2 sentences2000In addition, she claims the court erred by declining to admit testimony that mother’s prior boyfriend, T.L., was present during the time in which A.H. suffered multiple fractures, ¶ 17 “The Juvenile Act provides liberal access to court records and provides the opportunity for liberal discovery in a dependency or delinquency action.” In re J.C., 412 Pa.Super. 369 , 603 A.2d 627, 630 (1992). 2000In addition, she claims the court erred by declining to admit testimony that mother’s prior boyfriend, T.L., was present during the time in which A.H. suffered multiple fractures, ¶ 17 “The Juvenile Act provides liberal access to court records and provides the opportunity for liberal discovery in a dependency or delinquency action.” In re J.C., 412 Pa.Super. 369 , 603 A.2d 627, 630 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Borough of Wilkinsburg v. Colella
green
2 sentences2010Specifically, relying upon this Court's pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court's decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, because *1196 R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four mont 2010Specifically, relying upon this Court’s pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court’s decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, be cause R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four months at | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Jt
green
2 sentences2010See Dissenting Opinion, at 1197-99 (citing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)); In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 , 776 n. 9 (Pa.Super.2009). 2010See Dissenting Opinion, at 1197-99 (citing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)); In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 , 776 n. 9 (Pa.Super.2009). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In the Interest of D.P.
green
2 sentences2010Specifically, relying upon this Court's pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court's decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, because *1196 R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four mont 2010Specifically, relying upon this Court’s pronouncement in In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 , 901 A.2d 1017 (2006), and the Superior Court’s decision in Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702 , 703, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa.2009), the Superior Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion, inter alia, in failing to adhere to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9), which requires the court to consider whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months, be cause R.J.T. had been in placement for the last twenty-four months at | 2 | 2010–2010 |
In Re ALD
green
2 sentences2003These are considerations that were proposed and attempted during the FSP and for whatever reason failed to achieve a minimally adequate result and are not properly revisited in the termination proceeding. ¶ 21 As held in In Re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa.Super.2002), the orphans court in a termination proceeding may not reintroduce a reunification plan, as that aspect of the matrix of dependency termination proceedings is final once the juvenile court has determined the statutory requirements of attempted reunification pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b) Purposes (1)(3), and sect 2003These are considerations that were proposed and attempted during the FSP and for whatever reason failed to achieve a minimally adequate result and are not properly revisited in the termination proceeding. ¶ 21 As held in In Re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa.Super.2002), the orphans court in a termination proceeding may not reintroduce a reunification plan, as that aspect of the matrix of dependency termination proceedings is final once the juvenile court has determined the statutory requirements of attempted reunification pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b) Purposes (1)(3), and sect | 2 | 2003–2003 |
In Re in the Interest of M.B.
green
2 sentences2003As stated in Interest of M.B., 388 Pa.Super. 381 , 565 A.2d 804 (1989), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 601 , 589 A.2d 692 (1990) (emphasis added.): As a practical and legal matter, an order by the juvenile court changing the child’s placement goal from reunification to adoption ends any dispute that may exist between CYS and the parent as to the adequacy of CYS’ services aimed at reuniting the parent with his/her children and, of course, as to whether CYS had selected the most appropriate goal for this family. 2003As stated in Interest of M.B., 388 Pa.Super. 381 , 565 A.2d 804 (1989), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 601 , 589 A.2d 692 (1990) (emphasis added.): As a practical and legal matter, an order by the juvenile court changing the child’s placement goal from reunification to adoption ends any dispute that may exist between CYS and the parent as to the adequacy of CYS’ services aimed at reuniting the parent with his/her children and, of course, as to whether CYS had selected the most appropriate goal for this family. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Moody, K.
green
2 sentences2021The majority decision in B.T. stated: This case, unlike [Commonwealth v. Moody, 633 Pa. 335 , 125 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015)], does not involve willful misconduct that occurred in the presence of the court and obstructed its fair and orderly process. [The mother’s] alleged misconduct did not occur in the presence of the trial court and did not obstruct orderly process. 2021The majority decision in B.T. stated: This case, unlike [Commonwealth v. Moody, 633 Pa. 335 , 125 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015)], does not involve willful misconduct that occurred in the presence of the court and obstructed its fair and orderly process. [The mother’s] alleged misconduct did not occur in the presence of the trial court and did not obstruct orderly process. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In the Int. of: A.C., Appeal of: D.C.
green
1 sentence2021In recognition of Mother’s positive actions to remedy difficult life challenges, upon remittance of the record, we direct the trial court to promptly schedule, at the parties’ mutual convenience, a permanency hearing at which the trial court may evaluate Child’s placement, which we acknowledge “turns on what is in the child’s best interest, not on what the parent wants or which goals the parent has achieved.” See id. at 565 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re C.W.U.
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 65 ; N.T., 7/9/20, at 129 (Father acknowledged that he went to the visits, was tested for drugs, and tested positive for cocaine). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re SM
green
2 sentences2008In re S.M., 418 Pa.Super. 359 , 614 A.2d 312 (1992). ¶ 15 Moreover, although Parents rely upon Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) in support of their claim that Mother’s appeal of the dependency orders precluded the trial court from conducting a permanency hearing within thirty days, they virtually overlook Rule 1701(c), which states in pertinent part: Where only a particular item, claim or assessment adjudged in the matter is involved in an appeal, ... the appeal ... shall operate to prevent the trial court or other government unit from proceeding further with only such item, claim or assessment, unless other 2008In re S.M., 418 Pa.Super. 359 , 614 A.2d 312 (1992). ¶ 15 Moreover, although Parents rely upon Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) in support of their claim that Mother’s appeal of the dependency orders precluded the trial court from conducting a permanency hearing within thirty days, they virtually overlook Rule 1701(c), which states in pertinent part: Where only a particular item, claim or assessment adjudged in the matter is involved in an appeal, ... the appeal ... shall operate to prevent the trial court or other government unit from proceeding further with only such item, claim or assessment, unless other | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Ex Rel. H.S.W.C.-B & S.E.C.-B
green
2 sentences2008In In the Interest of H.S.W.C.-B, 575 Pa. 473 , 836 A.2d 908 (2003), a case addressing the finality of orders granting or denying a status change in dependency cases, our Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part: In order to avoid gamesmanship, and because of the time needed for appellate review, all orders denying goal changes or termination of parental rights will remain in effect until overturned on appeal or rendered moot by a subsequent order. 2008In In the Interest of H.S.W.C.-B, 575 Pa. 473 , 836 A.2d 908 (2003), a case addressing the finality of orders granting or denying a status change in dependency cases, our Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part: In order to avoid gamesmanship, and because of the time needed for appellate review, all orders denying goal changes or termination of parental rights will remain in effect until overturned on appeal or rendered moot by a subsequent order. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.