abuse of discretion standard in Pennsylvania

2026As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed in In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010), there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review….

2026As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court discussed in In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010), there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review….

2026In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2016Id. -6- J-S37044-16 Instantly, we find that the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights was not an abuse of discretion or error of law where Father did not demonstrate a “reasonable firmness” to overcome any alleged obstacles constructed by B.V. to prevent Father from contact with Child.

2026The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2026The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the -4- J-A28013-25 court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2025“In reviewing a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, we evaluate the court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2020“In reviewing a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, we evaluate the court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2025See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (noting that “there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in [dependency and termination of parental rights] cases” and acknowledging that “unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact- specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents” (citations omitted)); see also In re S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108 , 1124 (Pa. 2021) (emphasizing

2025Specifically, Mother argues that “because she took the necessary steps to ensure the well-being of [Child], the elements of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 19. ____________________________________________ Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (noting that “there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in [dependency and termination of parental rights] cases” and acknowledging that “unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact- specific determinations on a cold record, wher

2026The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2026The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the -4- J-A28013-25 court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2023See In the Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1174 (citing In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 , for the proposition that the abuse of discretion standard applies in a dependency matter); see also In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 982 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Initially, our standard of review of an order regarding a placement goal of a dependent child is the abuse of discretion standard.”) (citation omitted).

2021See In the Interest of L.Z., 631 Pa. 343, 360 , 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (citing In re R.J.T., 608 Pa., 26 -27, 9 A.3d at 1190 )), for the proposition that the abuse of discretion standard applies in a dependency matter; see also In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 977 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“In cases involving a court’s order changing the placement goal from “return home” to adoption, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”) Pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, when considering a petition for a goal change for a dependent child, the juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (

2026In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2024In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2024The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 . -6- J-S13033-24 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761

2024The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 . -4- J-S26031-24 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761

2024The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 . -6- J-S13033-24 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761

2024The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 . -4- J-S26031-24 Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761

2024“Generally, on review of an order concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260, 1268 (Pa. 2006).

2022Accordingly, we address Appellant’s second, third and fourth issues, mindful of our standard of review: “[O]n review of an order concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260, 1268 (Pa. 2006).

2018“In examining the denial of a petition to strike or open a confessed judgment, we review the order for an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

2015“In examining the denial of a petition to strike or open a confessed judgment, we review the order for an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Ferrick v. Bianchini, 69 A.3d 642, 647 (Pa.Super.2013).

2025“A trial court’s decision to deny a petition to open … a judgment of non pros is scrutinized on the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review.” Madrid v. Alpine Mountain Corp., 24 A.3d 380, 382 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2023“A trial court's decision to deny a petition to open or strike a judgment of non pros is scrutinized on the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review.” Madrid v. Alpine Mountain Corp., 24 A.3d 380, 382 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 40 A.3d 1237 (Pa. 2012).

2026See Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1090 (Pa. 2017) (“[a]ppellate courts review evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion”); Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 781 A.2d 110, 120 (Pa. 2001) (“we decline to determine whether or not the victim’s statement was properly admitted as an excited utterance since we hold that even if the court erred in admitting the statement, any such error was harmless”).

2023Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1080 (Pa. 2017) (citations & quotation marks omitted; paragraph break added).

2023See In the Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1174 (citing In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 , for the proposition that the abuse of discretion standard applies in a dependency matter); see also In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 982 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Initially, our standard of review of an order regarding a placement goal of a dependent child is the abuse of discretion standard.”) (citation omitted).

2021See In the Interest of L.Z., 631 Pa. 343, 360 , 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (citing In re R.J.T., 608 Pa., 26 -27, 9 A.3d at 1190 )), for the proposition that the abuse of discretion standard applies in a dependency matter; see also In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 977 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“In cases involving a court’s order changing the placement goal from “return home” to adoption, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”) Pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, when considering a petition for a goal change for a dependent child, the juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (

2025Haentjens v. Haentjens, [] 860 A.2d 1056, 1062 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2021It is further well established that on appeal the Superior Court will “review APL awards under an abuse of discretion standard.” Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448, 463 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing Haentjens v. Haentjens, 860 A.2d 1056 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

2026“An abuse of discretion standard governs our review of the propriety of a grant or denial of an appeal nunc pro tunc.” Commonwealth v. Stock, 679 A.2d 760, 762 (Pa. 1996).

2025“An abuse of discretion standard governs our review of the propriety of a grant or denial of an appeal nunc pro tunc.” Commonwealth v. Stock, 679 A.2d 760, 762 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted).

2023"Generally, on review of an order concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard." Berkeyheiser v. A- Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117 , 1125 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted)." To the extent that the question involves a pure issue of law, [the Court's] scope ... of review [is] plenary." Id.

2023"Generally, on review of an order concerning discovery, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard." Berkeyheiser v. A- Plus Investigations, Inc., 936 A.2d 1117 , 1125 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted)." To the extent that the question involves a pure issue of law, [the Court's] scope ... of review [is] plenary." Id.

2018Moreover, “when reviewing the decision to grant or deny a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence, an appellate court is to determine whether the PCRA court committed an abuse of discretion or error of law that controlled the outcome of the case.” Id.

2018Moreover, “when reviewing the decision to grant or deny a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence, an appellate court is to determine whether the PCRA court committed an abuse of discretion or error of law that controlled the outcome of the case.” Id. -9- J-S12020-18 In concluding that Appellant failed to meet this burden, the PCRA court reasoned: The facts that [Hosby] contends are new are that he was hit with a chair immediately before firing his gun rather than going to his car to fetch a gun prior to being hit with the chair.

2025As such, we must accept the trial court’s ____________________________________________ 5 While this challenge is at least arguably moot following our decision to affirm the family court’s termination decree, see In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa.Super. 2021), we address it in an abundance of caution. - 11 - J-S33015-25 findings of fact and credibility determinations if the record supports them, but we need not accept the court’s inferences or conclusions of law.” Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) (cleaned up).

2025As such, we must accept the trial court’s findings of fact ____________________________________________ 6 This Court has often relied upon our alternative analysis in Interest of D.R.- W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020), wherein we concluded, without explanation, that a parent’s appeal from a goal change order was moot once we affirmed the related termination decree.

2024Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000) (appellate court must give “the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence” and consider each of the reasons given by the trial court to determine if trial court’s discretion was exercised on “a foundation of reason”); Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1053 (Pa. 2013) (reviewing court must “give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons” of the trial court and finding that Superior Court did not

2024Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 752 (Pa. 2000) (appellate court must give “the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence” and consider each of the reasons given by the trial court to determine if trial court’s discretion was exercised on “a -3- J-S35012-22 foundation of reason”); Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1053 (Pa. 2013) (reviewing court must “give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons” of the trial court and finding that Superi

2026Consequently, “[o]ur review of the trial court’s determination in a competency case is based on an abuse of discretion standard, recognizing, of course, that the trial court had the opportunity to observe all of the witnesses, including, as here, the allegedly incapacitated person.” In re Hyman, 811 A.2d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2023This Court's “task is to ensure that the record is free from legal error and to determine if the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt's findings are supported by competent and adequate -3- J-S12003-23 evidence and are not predicated upon capricious disbelief of competent and credible evidence.” Id. (citation omitted) Consequently, “[o]ur review of the trial court's determination in a competency case is based on an abuse of discretion standard, recognizing, of course, that the trial court had the opportunity to observe all of the witnesses, including, as here, the alleged[] incapacitated person.” In re Hyman, 81

2026“We recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair and competent, and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 391–92 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2026“We recognize that our trial judges are honorable, fair and competent, and although we employ an abuse of discretion standard, we do so recognizing that the judge himself is best qualified to gauge his ability to preside impartially.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387 , 391–92 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2022In Commonwealth v. Karetny, [ ] 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005), our Supreme Court found that this Court erred in applying an abuse of discretion standard in considering a pre-trial habeas matter to determine whether the Commonwealth had provided prima facie evidence.

2022In Commonwealth v. Karetny, [ ] 880 A.2d 505 (Pa. 2005), our Supreme Court found that this Court erred in applying an abuse of discretion standard in considering a pre-trial habeas matter to determine whether the Commonwealth had provided prima facie evidence.