Trial court erred in ruling that DHS had not made "reasonable efforts" to prevent placement simply because DHS did not have a placement plan in hand at a dependency hearing, where trial court erroneously applied the standard relating to permanency hearings. Order of the trial court vacated in part, case remanded.
March 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
FAMILY LAW
Adjudication of Dependency • Lack of “Reasonable Efforts” to Prevent or Eliminate Need for Placement • Failure to Have Placement Plan
In the interest of: K.C., a minor, PICS Case No. 17-0427 (Pa. Super. Feb. 24, 2017) Platt, J. (11 pages).
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY III Oakland, CA Salary: $17,294 - $21,419/month, 37.5-hr work week Your Port. Your Community. Your Career. Whe...
Stern, Lavinthal & Frankenberg, LLC, is seeking a foreclosure attorney experienced in the NJ and/or NY foreclosure process and default l...
Mineola defense firm seeks attorneys with 3-5 years of actual insurance defense experience to handle complex general liability matters. Sala...
