D.R.C. v. J.A.Z.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

D.R.C. v. J.A.Z.

994 A.2d 1079

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in D.R.C. v. J.A.Z.. Read the opinion of the Court — 612 Pa. 519 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 11, 2010·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of May 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Does an interpretation of the Domestic Relations Code that requires the Department of Corrections to provide counseling to currently incarcerated felons, including those under a life sentence, so that they may obtain, “custody, partial custody or visitation,” of a minor child produce an absurd result?

(2) Can a custody court order the Department of Corrections to provide and pay for parental-custody-related [1080]*1080counseling for a state inmate when the Department is not a party to the custody proceedings and where no statute directs that it is to assume this cost?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of May 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Does an interpretation of the Domestic Relations Code that requires the Department of Corrections to provide counseling to currently incarcerated felons, including those under a life sentence, so that they may obtain, “custody, partial custody or visitation,” of a minor child produce an absurd result?

(2) Can a custody court order the Department of Corrections to provide and pay for parental-custody-related [1080]*1080counseling for a state inmate when the Department is not a party to the custody proceedings and where no statute directs that it is to assume this cost?

D.R.C. v. J.A.Z., 994 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 2010).

Pincite

994 A.2d 1079 (D.R.C. v. J.A.Z.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.