60 Pennsylvania opinions name it 10 courts 1957–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Z.S.W.green2 sentences2022See In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008). 2017This Court has interpreted this provision as requiring the Petitioner to demonstrate a settled intent to relinquish a parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to parent: To satisfy the requirements of section 2511(a)(1), the moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties. -6- J-S55013-17 In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations om | 16 | 16 |
Adoption of M.S.green2 sentences2022Adoption of M.S., 664 A.2d 1370, 1373 (Pa. Super. 11 Inat, # 202110832 - Page 13 of 20 Ct. 1995). 2018Concerning the element of a parent’s settled purpose to relinquish a parental claim, this court has explained that a petitioner must show that the parent “made a deliberate decision to terminate the parent-child relationship throughout the six-month period.” Adoption of M.S., 664 A.2d 1370, 1373 (Pa. Super. 1995). | 4 | 4 |
In Re Adoption of M.E.P.green2 sentences2024See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2000). 2024See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2000). | 2 | 2 |
In Re ZPgreen2 sentences2024In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010). - 23 - J-S02031-24 In concluding the Agency proved the grounds for termination, by clear and convincing evidence, under Subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b), the orphans’ court relevantly indicated the following on the record at the termination hearing: Under Subsection 2511(a)(1), termination of parental rights may occur where the [Agency] establishes that the parent, for a period of at least six months preceding the filing of the petition, has either evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing a parental claim to the child or has refused or failed 2021See In re Z.P., supra at 1118- 19; see also In re K.Z.S, 946 A.2d 753, 761 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to complete case plan objectives is rejection of parental duties, demonstrating “a lack of serious intent to cultivate and maintain a parent/child relationship”). -8- J-S12002-21 While the trial court found that DHS also met its burden of proof under subsections (a)(2), (5), and (8), “we need only agree with its decision as to any one subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Burnsgreen2 sentences2022Jn re Burns, 379 A.2d 535, 623-24 (Pa. 1977). 2021See In re Burns, 379 A.2d at 539 & n.7. [J-30-2021] - 31 A.3d 496 , 504 (Pa. Super. 2019), quoting B., N.M., 856 A.2d at 855 ; Adoption of Smith, 194 A.2d at 922 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Adoption of J.M.M.green2 sentences2018In the Matter of the Adoption of J.M.M., 782 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Pa,Super. 2001)). 2017In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 510 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citing In the Matter of the_Adoption of J.M.M., 782 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Pe.Super. 20,01), appeal denied, 797 A.2dl114 (Pjl. 2002). | 2 | 2 |
In Re BABY S. Appeal of S.S.green2 sentences2018See, e.g., In re Baby S., 128 A.3d at 298-300 (Egg Donor and Gestational Carrier’s respective contracts outlining intended parents were to be deemed legal parents). 2018See, e.g., In re Baby S. , 128 A.3d at 298-300 (Egg Donor and Gestational Carrier's respective contracts outlining intended parents were to be deemed legal parents). | 2 | 2 |
Wolfe Adoption Casegreen2 sentences1985We note that a finding of settled purpose to relinquish a parental claim in the context of a termination of parental rights proceeding, which we find instructive here, “requires an affirmative indication of a positive intent by the parent.” In Re Adoption of Wolfe, 454 Pa. 550, 556 , 312 A.2d 793, 796 (1973). 1985We note that a finding of settled purpose to relinquish a parental claim in the context of a termination of parental rights proceeding, which we find instructive here, “requires an affirmative indication of a positive intent by the parent.” In Re Adoption of Wolfe, 454 Pa. 550, 556 , 312 A.2d 793, 796 (1973). | 1 | 4 |
Falco v. PADOSgreen2 sentences1984In the landmark decision of Falco v. Pados, 444 Pa. 372 , 282 A.2d 351 (1971), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abrogated the doctrine of parental immunity. 1984In the landmark decision of Falco v. Pados, 444 Pa. 372 , 282 A.2d 351 (1971), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court abrogated the doctrine of parental immunity. | 1 | 4 |
In Re B.,N.M.green2 sentences2021See In re Burns, 379 A.2d at 539 & n.7. [J-30-2021] - 31 A.3d 496 , 504 (Pa. Super. 2019), quoting B., N.M., 856 A.2d at 855 ; Adoption of Smith, 194 A.2d at 922 . 2019CYS next avers that the trial court abused its discretion in denying CYS’ Petition because Mother failed to exercise “reasonable firmness” in “resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship.” CYS’ Br. at 17 quoting B., N.M., 856 A.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re Adoption of R.J.S.green2 sentences2017In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 510 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citing In the Matter of the_Adoption of J.M.M., 782 A.2d 1024, 1030 (Pe.Super. 20,01), appeal denied, 797 A.2dl114 (Pjl. 2002). 2017In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006). | 1 | 2 |
V.B. v. J.E.B.green2 sentences2026See V.B., 55 A.3d at 1200 - 11 - J-A07011-26 (concluding that “nothing in the record supports the trial court’s after-the-fact assertion that it considered the heightened standard of production when it issued the custody order”). 2026See also Wolfe v. Wilson, 285 A.3d 919 , 2022 WL 4113116 , at *3 (Pa.Super. 2022) (non-precedential decision) (“The question of whether nonparents rebutted the statutory presumption in favor of a parent must be resolved by the trial court[.]” (cleaned up)); but see V.B., 55 A.3d at 1200 - 05 (proceeding to consider whether the grandparents’ evidence was sufficient to overcome the parental presumption despite the trial court failing to apply - 13 - J-A07011-26 it in the first instance and concluding that the trial court’s post-hoc conclusion that the grandparents had met that burden was unsuppo | 1 | 1 |
In Re Involuntary Termination of C.W.S.M.green1 sentence2023See In re Termination of C.W.S.M., 839 A.2d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Adoption of McCraygreen1 sentence2021A parent must “‘exercise reasonable firmness’” in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship, or his “‘rights may be forfeited.’” S.P., 47 A.3d at 828 , quoting In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652, 655 (Pa. 1975). “‘Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.’” In re Adoption of C.J.A., 204 12 The law does not require a settled purpose of relinquishing a parental claim and a refusal or failure | 1 | 1 |
Gwin v. Merkingreen1 sentence2021See In re Z.P., supra at 1118- 19; see also In re K.Z.S, 946 A.2d 753, 761 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to complete case plan objectives is rejection of parental duties, demonstrating “a lack of serious intent to cultivate and maintain a parent/child relationship”). -8- J-S12002-21 While the trial court found that DHS also met its burden of proof under subsections (a)(2), (5), and (8), “we need only agree with its decision as to any one subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of K.Z.S.green1 sentence2021See In re Z.P., supra at 1118- 19; see also In re K.Z.S, 946 A.2d 753, 761 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to complete case plan objectives is rejection of parental duties, demonstrating “a lack of serious intent to cultivate and maintain a parent/child relationship”). -8- J-S12002-21 While the trial court found that DHS also met its burden of proof under subsections (a)(2), (5), and (8), “we need only agree with its decision as to any one subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
In Re CMSgreen2 sentences2017In re C.M.S., 2003 PA Super 292 , Pll, 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2017In re C.M.S., 2003 PA Super 292 , Pll, 832 A.2d 457 , 462 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
In re L.M.green1 sentence2017Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination ofhis or herparental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511 (b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under thestandard of best interests of the child." In re L.Af, 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). 11 Section 2511 ( a)~(b)provides in pertinent part (a) General rule. -· The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (l) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six mo | 1 | 1 |
| Porter v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idahogreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Adoption of R. W. B.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
V.B. v. J.E.B.green2 sentences2026See V.B., 55 A.3d at 1200 - 11 - J-A07011-26 (concluding that “nothing in the record supports the trial court’s after-the-fact assertion that it considered the heightened standard of production when it issued the custody order”). 2026See also Wolfe v. Wilson, 285 A.3d 919 , 2022 WL 4113116 , at *3 (Pa.Super. 2022) (non-precedential decision) (“The question of whether nonparents rebutted the statutory presumption in favor of a parent must be resolved by the trial court[.]” (cleaned up)); but see V.B., 55 A.3d at 1200 - 05 (proceeding to consider whether the grandparents’ evidence was sufficient to overcome the parental presumption despite the trial court failing to apply - 13 - J-A07011-26 it in the first instance and concluding that the trial court’s post-hoc conclusion that the grandparents had met that burden was unsuppo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re RNJ
green
2 sentences2018We have explained that “[t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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.” Id. (citations omitted). -5- J-S83031-17 Termination Pursuant to 2511(a)(1) Section 2511(a)(1) provides that the trial court may terminate parental rights if the Petitioner establishes that for six months, the parent demonstrated a settled intent to relinquish a parental claim or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties: 2018We have explained that "[t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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." Id. (citations omitted). -5 J -S83031-17 Termination Pursuant to 2511(a)(1) Section 2511(a)(1) provides that the trial court may terminate parental rights if the Petitioner establishes that for six months, the parent demonstrated a settled intent to relinquish a parental claim or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties: | 3 | 2016–2018 |
Matter of Adoption of Charles EDM, II
green
2 sentences1999In re E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595 , 708 A.2d 88 (1998). 1999In re E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595 , 708 A.2d 88 (1998). | 3 | 1998–1999 |
Chronister ex rel. Morrison v. Brenneman
green
1 sentence2024Whether, in the alternative, the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and or error of law . . . by entering a PFA order in regard to the child and against [Mother] . . . where the trial court failed to apply the parental privilege found in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6304(c) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6304(d), the parental privilege found in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 509, and failed to follow the holding of Chronister v. Brenneman, 742 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1999) and the authority therein set forth. -4- J-S45001-23 C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re CS
green
1 sentence2022In re C.S., supra. The court should consider the entire background of the case and not simply: mechanically apply the six-month statutory provision. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Smith Adoption Case
green
1 sentence2021See In re Burns, 379 A.2d at 539 & n.7. [J-30-2021] - 31 A.3d 496 , 504 (Pa. Super. 2019), quoting B., N.M., 856 A.2d at 855 ; Adoption of Smith, 194 A.2d at 922 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Adoption of S.P.
green
1 sentence2021A parent must “‘exercise reasonable firmness’” in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship, or his “‘rights may be forfeited.’” S.P., 47 A.3d at 828 , quoting In re Adoption of McCray, 331 A.2d 652, 655 (Pa. 1975). “‘Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.’” In re Adoption of C.J.A., 204 12 The law does not require a settled purpose of relinquishing a parental claim and a refusal or failure | 1 | 2021–2021 |
CTD v. Nee
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 68-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (citing statutes that protect a parent’s fundamental right by providing a parental presumption). 2006Id. at 68-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (citing statutes that protect a parent's fundamental right by providing a parental presumption). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Department of Public Welfare v. Schultz
green
1 sentence2006More recently, in Department of Public Welfare v. Schultz, 822 A.2d 876 (Pa. Commw. 2003), the Commonwealth Court also rejected a parental claim for loss of filial consortium. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Adoption of Baby Boy A. v. Catholic Social Services
green
2 sentences2000Adoption of Baby Boy A. v. Catholic Social Services of Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Inc., 512 Pa. 517 , 517 A.2d 1244 (1986); In re W.M. 2000Adoption of Baby Boy A. v. Catholic Social Services of Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Inc., 512 Pa. 517 , 517 A.2d 1244 (1986); In re W.M. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Rowles v. Rowles
green
2 sentences1999Since the issue was never formally raised in the court below or on appeal, we will not address it. 6 .Our Supreme Court’s decision in Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. 443 , 668 A.2d 126 (1995), purported to abolish the parental presumption in custody determinations. 1999Since the issue was never formally raised in the court below or on appeal, we will not address it. 6 .Our Supreme Court’s decision in Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. 443 , 668 A.2d 126 (1995), purported to abolish the parental presumption in custody determinations. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Matter of Adoption of Barnett
green
2 sentences1995Matter of Adoption of Barnett, 304 Pa.Super. 514 , 450 A.2d 1356 (1982). 1995Matter of Adoption of Barnett, 304 Pa.Super. 514 , 450 A.2d 1356 (1982). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education red | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Sinn v. Burd green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Hack v. Hack green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Mason v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| In Re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights & Adoption of Baby Girl Fleming green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Stream green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Holodook v. Spencer green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| In Re the Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights to Kapcsos green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Chester County Children's Services Appeal green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| DiGIROLAMO v. Apanavage green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| In Re Adoption of M. T. T. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Davis v. Smith green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Vidmar v. Sigmund neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Goller v. White green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Kaczorowski v. Kalkosinski green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Mahnke v. Moore green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Roller v. Roller green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.