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.
35 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2026 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 the Int. of: D.R.-W., a Minor Appeal of: D.W.green2 sentences2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption). 2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of - 23 - A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption). | 2 | 2 |
In Re: Adopt of: A.H., Appeal of: C.W.green2 sentences2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption). 2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of - 23 - A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption). | 2 | 2 |
In re T.S.M.green2 sentences2023See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9); In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085 , 1108 & n.19 (Pa. 2023) (discussion of enactment of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) in accordance with federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 269 (same). 2021In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 3 Immediately following the termination proceeding, the court conducted a permanency review hearing pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351. | 2 | 2 |
In the Int. of: L.B., Appeal of: A.W.green2 sentences2022Interest of L.B., 229 A.3d at 974-75. 2022Id. at 974-75. | 2 | 2 |
In Re G., T.green2 sentences2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M. 2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M. | 2 | 2 |
In Re in the Interest of M.B.green2 sentences2019See M.B., 565 A.2d at 806 . 2019See M.B., 565 A.2d at 806 . | 2 | 2 |
Interest of L.T. & D.T., minors, Appeal of: A.Z.green2 sentences2020The reviewing . court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's "inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id. '7 r, {ii \.Pl "[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id. · Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a p 2020The reviewing . court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's "inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id. '7 r, {ii \.Pl "[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id. · Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a p | 1 | 3 |
In re S.H.green1 sentence2025Therefore, “[i]n order for - 27 - the court to declare the custodian a ‘permanent legal custodian[,]’ the court must find that neither reunification nor adoption is best suited to the child’s safety, protection[,] and physical, mental[,] and moral welfare.” In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In the Int. of: C.R., a Minor Appeal of: M.J.R.green1 sentence2025See id. at 182 . ____________________________________________ 6 We note that salient to the Interest of S.W. holding was the Court’s decision to overrule a 1989 Superior Court decision, Mitch v. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Service Agency, 556 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 1989), which predated the 1998 enactment of section 6336.1(a). | 1 | 1 |
Mitch v. CHILDREN & YOUTH SS AGENCYgreen1 sentence2025See id. at 182 . ____________________________________________ 6 We note that salient to the Interest of S.W. holding was the Court’s decision to overrule a 1989 Superior Court decision, Mitch v. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Service Agency, 556 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 1989), which predated the 1998 enactment of section 6336.1(a). | 1 | 1 |
In RE: J.D.H. Appeal Of: A.S.H., Natural Mothergreen1 sentence2025See In re Adoption of B.R.S., 11 A.3d 541 , 545 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating: permanency planning for dependent children proceeds in the juvenile court under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387; while the termination of parental rights matters proceed in Orphans’ Court under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938; and the same trial judge may preside over both matters); see also In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- At a permanency review hearing on May 1, 2024, DHS requested the Children be removed from Grandmother’s care. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Adoption of B.R.S.green1 sentence2025See In re Adoption of B.R.S., 11 A.3d 541 , 545 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating: permanency planning for dependent children proceeds in the juvenile court under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387; while the termination of parental rights matters proceed in Orphans’ Court under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938; and the same trial judge may preside over both matters); see also In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- At a permanency review hearing on May 1, 2024, DHS requested the Children be removed from Grandmother’s care. | 1 | 1 |
In the Int. of: N.S., Appeal of: S.B.green1 sentence2025In re J.R., 333 A.3d 446 , 452-53 (Pa. Super. 2025) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also N.S., 237 A.3d at 552 (holding that “[n]either the 10-page transcript of the permanency review hearing, nor the trial court’s 3-page opinion, exhibits the comprehensive inquiry required in a removal case, or explains why removal of [the child] from [the] mother’s custody promotes [the child’s] best interests or welfare” (citations omitted and some formatting altered)). | 1 | 1 |
In the Int of: D.C.D./ Appeal of: Clinton Co C&YSgreen1 sentence2023D.C.D., 105 A.3d at 672-73 (citations omitted); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 cf. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(9) (concerning matters to be determined at the permanency review hearing, including whether the agency has provided the family with necessary services). | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Adoption of: L.B.M., A Minorgreen2 sentences2019This Court extended the requirements of In re Adoption of L.B.M., 639 Pa. 428, 432 , 161 A.3d 172, 174 (2017), and its progeny to dependency actions generally. 2019This Court extended the requirements of In re Adoption of L.B.M., 639 Pa. 428, 432 , 161 A.3d 172, 174 (2017), and its progeny to dependency actions generally. | 1 | 1 |
Mo v. Fwgreen1 sentence2019“The right of a litigant to in-court presentation of evidence is essential to due process; in almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d 1068, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2012). -6- In In Interest of L.T., 158 A.3d 1266, 1278 (Pa.Super. 2017), this Court confronted a similar challenge to a juvenile court’s sua sponte goal change based, in part, upon the best practices espoused in the Dependency Benchbook, and we concluded that the Juvenile Act not only forewarns that t | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of: Z v. a Minorgreen1 sentence2018See In Interest of Z.V., supra. Meanwhile, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 4, 2017 termination decree on February 3, 2017, which was docketed at No. 522 EDA 2017. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of: J.M., a Minorgreen1 sentence2018See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6334(b); see also In Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d at 418 . | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.green2 sentences2018Id. 3 C.T. did not file a separate appeal, nor has she participated in this appeal. -3- J-S56032-18 The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in relevant part, as a child who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. 2018In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). ____________________________________________ 2Additionally, the trial court’s Order stated, inter alia, that Child was “adamant that he wants to remain in the foster home[,]” Order, 4/11/18, at 6, and a permanency review hearing would take place in three months. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Adoption of J.N.F.green1 sentence2016We have explained, “[d]ue process requires nothing more than adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the chance to defend -5- J-S22001-16 oneself in an impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter.” In re J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775, 781 (Pa. Super. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Kulp Ex Rel. Kulp v. Hrivnakgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gunn v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of R.P.
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 452 . 2016Id. at 457-58 . | 2 | 2016–2022 |
In Re JS
neutral
2 sentences2005J.S., 795 A.2d at 985-86 . 2005J.S., 795 A.2d at 985-86 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Ex Rel. H.S.W.C.-B & S.E.C.-B
green
2 sentences2005H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d at 909 . ¶ 15 In J.S., the order on appeal was entered after a permanency review hearing. 2005H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d at 909 . ¶ 15 In J.S., the order on appeal was entered after a permanency review hearing. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re AP
green
2 sentences2001Without reaching the merits of Mother's claim, we must remand this case for an evidentiary hearing to construct a record so that this Court can determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. ¶ 8 In light of the mandate espoused by this Court in A.P., 728 A.2d at 378 , that a reviewing court must consider whether a change in permanency goal is supported by the record, we cannot contemplate a situation where this Court could review an order changing a permanency goal with regard to a dependent child, from reunification to termination and adoption, without a transcript of the permanency 2001Without reaching the merits of Mother’s claim, we must remand this case for an evidentia-ry hearing to construct a record so that this Court can determine whether the tidal court abused its discretion. ¶ 8 In light of the mandate espoused by this Court in A.P., 728 A.2d at 378 , that a reviewing court must consider whether a change in permanency goal is supported by the record, we cannot contemplate a situation where this Court could review an order changing a permanency goal with regard to a dependent child, from reunification to termination and adoption, without a transcript of the permanenc | 2 | 2001–2001 |
In the Int. of: R.P., Appeal of: D.D.
green
1 sentence2026The juvenile court continued to approve the transition plan at subsequent permanency review hearings, but identified difficulties in the transition, including “complex paperwork and difficulties with waiting lists and requirements for the limited adult residential facilities” as well as “a lack of communication with the guardian appointed by the Orphans’ Court.” Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/16/25, at 3. ____________________________________________ 2 N.L. is non-verbal autistic and intellectually challenged. -2- On June 23, 2025, during a permanency review hearing, the juvenile court learned that “no o | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In the Interest of: J.R., Appeal of: DHS
green
1 sentence2025In re J.R., 333 A.3d 446 , 452-53 (Pa. Super. 2025) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also N.S., 237 A.3d at 552 (holding that “[n]either the 10-page transcript of the permanency review hearing, nor the trial court’s 3-page opinion, exhibits the comprehensive inquiry required in a removal case, or explains why removal of [the child] from [the] mother’s custody promotes [the child’s] best interests or welfare” (citations omitted and some formatting altered)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Batterman, C. v. Santo, S.
green
1 sentence2023See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9); In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085 , 1108 & n.19 (Pa. 2023) (discussion of enactment of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) in accordance with federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 269 (same). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re: G.M.S., a minor, Appeal of: L.N.C.
green
1 sentence2019Id. -3- County after she was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment, which qualified as a violation of her probation; she again participated by telephone. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Ab
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In the Interest of K.C.
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In the Interest of D.P. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Commonwealth v. Flor green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In re S.S. D.O.B. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| In Re CM green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.