In the Int. of: E.D.A. III, Minor Pet of: Mother

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.D.A., III, A : No. 44 MAL 2024 MINOR :

: : Petition for Allowance of Appeal PETITION OF: T.M.A., MOTHER : from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.J.A., A MINOR : No. 45 MAL 2024 : :

PETITION OF: T.M.A., MOTHER : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INT. OF: R.M.A., A MINOR : No. 46 MAL 2024 : :

PETITION OF: T.W.A., MOTHER : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INT. OF: A.B.A., A MINOR : No. 47 MAL 2024 : :

PETITION OF: T.W.A., MOTHER : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.W., A MINOR : No. 48 MAL 2024 : :

PETITION OF: T.W.A., MOTHER : Petition for Allowance of Appeal : from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Does clear and convincing evidence exist to support a termination of parental rights decision where the trial court based its decision upon the testimony of one witness without acknowledging the competent testimony of multiple witnesses who provided testimony that directly contradicted that witness’ testimony.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

[44 MAL 2024, 45 MAL 2024, 46 MAL 2024, 47 MAL 2024 and 48 MAL 2024] - 2