• In the Interest of A.A.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-29
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Family Law
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0052

    The court rejected a youth service agency's argument that mother, who went into a coma while pregnant due to pre-eclampsia, committed child abuse by failing to obtain proper prenatal care and, thus, found that her minor daughter was not dependent. The court denied the agency's dependency petition.

  • In the Interest of: S.L., a minor

    Publication Date: 2019-01-29
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Evidence | Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0085

    Trial court erred in denying mother opportunity to call witnesses to rebut presumption that mother was the perpetrator of child abuse that caused injuries that would not have occurred but for mother's acts or omissions. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.

  • Dumas v. Brooks

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0059

    Trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a reconsidered child support order when the order granting reconsideration was received by the prothonotary within the 30-day appeal period and the trial court failed to either issue a reconsidered decision or order additional testimony within 120 days of the receipt of the order by the prothonotary. Order of the trial court vacated.

  • Allegheny County of Office of Children, Youth and Families v. Dept. of Human Serv.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-22
    Practice Area: Administrative Law | Family Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge McCullough
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0056

    Reconciling two applicable standards, the commonwealth court held that in cases where a child's injuries arise from the administration of corporal punishment, the factfinder must determine whether the force used was "reasonable force" and in so doing, consider whether the parent was criminally negligent in that he disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk or deviated from a standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. The commonwealth court affirmed an order sustaining father's appeal.

  • S.B. v. S.S.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Family Law | Privacy
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0031

    Trial court's gag order preventing second wife and her attorneys from publicly discussing anything that might identify or harm the child in a child custody case was constitutionally permissible since it was narrowly-tailored to advance the substantial governmental interest of safeguarding the child from physical and emotional harm. Affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Philadelphia County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In the Interest of L.J.B., a minor

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 19-0002

    Because the Child Protective Services Law's definition of "child" did not include a fetus or unborn child, a pregnant woman's drug abuse causing injury to the child upon birth did not render her a "perpetrator" of child abuse because there was no "child" at the time of mother's alleged acts of abuse. Order of the superior court reversed.

  • Napoli v. Napolil

    Publication Date: 2019-01-08
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Berks County
    Judge: Judge Lash
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1065

    A divorce master did not err in ordering husband to pay wife her share of the marital estate in five installments since requiring husband to liquidate his assets and immediately pay wife a lump sum would impose severe financial hardship upon him. The court overruled wife's exceptions in part.

  • Brubaker v. Brubaker

    Publication Date: 2019-01-01
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry: Construction | Real Estate
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1581

    The trial court acted within its discretion in relying on the value of husband's initial contribution to a real estate project, as agreed upon the contributing partners, in evaluating this marital asset and finding that wife was entitled to compensation for her contribution during the pre-separation phase of the project. The appellate court affirmed.

  • In re K.R.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-25
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1557

    Orphans' court properly involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights to her children because CYF met its burden of proving that mother's parental rights ought to be terminated and while mother did not waive her challenge to the orphan's court's failure to appoint legal counsel for the children by raising the issue for the first time on appeal, the children's legal interests were adequately represented by the GAL. Affirmed.

  • Liao v. Attorney Gen. U.S.A.

    Publication Date: 2018-12-25
    Practice Area: Family Law | Immigration Law
    Industry: Federal Government | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Shwartz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 18-1562

    The Bureau of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that petitioner was subject to removal due to his Pennsylvania conviction for endangering the welfare of a child because comparing the Pennsylvania statute to the offense of "child abuse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act showed the elements of the two statutes did not match and the statute under which petitioner was convicted did not fit within the definition of "child abuse" under §1227(a)(2)(E)(i) and there was no need to conduct a probability inquiry. Petition granted.