focused analysis in Pennsylvania

2020Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 187 A.3d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2018).8 In its opinion, the court focused its analysis on the trial court’s denial of Appellees’ for-cause challenge to prospective juror 29, and to the trial court’s lack of personal observation of this juror’s demeanor during voir dire.

2019Id. -8- J-S43029-19 In support of its decision, the PCRA court summarized as follows: In short, [Appellant] failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he would have declined the offer of probation and risked incarceration in a county or state facility if he had a fuller picture of the facts of the case and specific immigration consequences.

2018Consistent with these goals, appellate courts should affirm decrees terminating parental rights when non-prejudicial errors occur during termination proceedings Given the high stakes at issue when a court terminates parental rights, it is incumbent for this Court to provide to the bench and bar a more focused standard for examining whether an error that occurred during a termination hearing was harmless ln my view, the paradigm employed in Story provides an appropriate starting point for courts to assess whether an error that occurred during a termination proceeding was harmless Accordingly, u

2017"To the extent our legal reasoning differs from the trial court’s, we note that as an appellate court, we may affirm on any legal basis supported by the certified record.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 125 A.3d 425 , 433 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2011Applying the abuse of discretion standard, we held that Palisades “fails to satisfy any of these requirements so clearly as to compel intervention contrary to the Commission’s exercise of discretion.” Id. at 65-66 .