DHS brief in Pennsylvania

2004In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375, 378 (Pa.Super.1999).

2004In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375, 378 (Pa.Super.1999).

2026Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education, 587 F.3d 176, 189 (3d Cir. 2009),15 a petitioner must show that: (1) [the petitioner] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [the petitioner] was either excluded from or otherwise denied the benefits of some public entity’s services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits[,] or discrimination was by reason of the [petitioner’s] disability.

2025It is well-settled that “any individual whose parental rights are to be terminated must be afforded due process.” In re Adoption of K.M.D., 261 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa.Super. 2021).

2024Further, “nothing on this record” indicated that a DHS hearing “would not afford [the facility] a full opportunity to establish its actual, legitimate costs and any claimed failure to reimburse properly.” Id. at 516 (emphasis added).20 Thus, the Beal Court affirmed this Court’s order that sustained DHS’s preliminary objections and dismissed the facility’s petition for review.

2024Further, “nothing on this record” indicated that a DHS hearing “would not afford [the facility] a full opportunity to establish its actual, legitimate costs and any claimed failure to reimburse properly.” Id. at 516 (emphasis added).20 Thus, the Beal Court affirmed this Court’s order that sustained DHS’s preliminary objections and dismissed the facility’s petition for review.

2021See Bass, supra at 1135– 36 (indicating nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where “[t]here has been a non-negligent failure to file a timely appeal which was corrected within a very short time, during which any prejudice to the other side of the controversy would necessarily be minimal”); see also Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 , 1159-60 (Pa. 2001) (“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and un

2021See Bass, supra at 1135– 36 (indicating nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where “[t]here has been a non-negligent failure to file a timely appeal which was corrected within a very short time, during which any prejudice to the other side of the controversy would necessarily be minimal”); see also Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156, 1159-60 (Pa. 2001) (“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and una

2021(Center’s Brief at 13-14.) The crux of the Center’s argument is that “Commonwealth agencies shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received.” D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404, 411 (Pa. 2007) (quoting 2 Pa. C.S. § 505).

2021See Bass, supra at 1135– 36 (indicating nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where “[t]here has been a non-negligent failure to file a timely appeal which was corrected within a very short time, during which any prejudice to the other side of the controversy would necessarily be minimal”); see also Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 , 1159-60 (Pa. 2001) (“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and un

2021See Bass, supra at 1135– 36 (indicating nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate where “[t]here has been a non-negligent failure to file a timely appeal which was corrected within a very short time, during which any prejudice to the other side of the controversy would necessarily be minimal”); see also Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156, 1159-60 (Pa. 2001) (“The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non-negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and una

2020Our Supreme Court has established that appellate review of an order granting or denying termination of parental rights requires the appellate court to “accept factual findings and credibility determinations supported by the record” and “assess whether the common pleas court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1087 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted), cert. denied sub nom.

2015We have defined clear and convincing evidence as “testimony that is ‘so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’” In re A.B., supra at 349 (quoting In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa.Super. 1997)). 2 The DHS brief was due on January 5, 2015.

2007In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), our Supreme Court held that in order to preserve claims for appellate review, an appellant must comply with a trial court order to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

2007In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420 , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998), our Supreme Court held that in order to preserve claims for appellate review, an appellant must comply with a trial court order to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).