In the Int. of: S.B., Appeal of: F.H.

Opinion

[J-13A-2025 and J-13B-2025]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.B., A MINOR : No. 67 EAP 2024 : : Appeal from the Order of the APPEAL OF: F.H., MOTHER : Superior Court at No. 230 EDA 2024 : entered on September 6, 2024, : affirming the Order of the : Philadelphia County Court of : Common Pleas at No. CP-51-DP- : 0001180-2017 entered on December : 28, 2023. : : SUBMITTED: February 4, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B., A MINOR : No. 68 EAP 2024 : : Appeal from the Order of the APPEAL OF: F.H., MOTHER : Superior Court at No. 231 EDA 2024 : entered on September 6, 2024, : affirming the Order of the : Philadelphia County Court of : Common Pleas at No. CP-51-DP- : 0001305-2017 entered on December : 28, 2023 : : SUBMITTED: February 4, 2025

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 20, 2025 AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2025, the order of the Superior Court is

REVERSED. See In re A.J.R.-H., 188 A.3d 1157, 1167-70 (Pa. 2018) (holding that

documentary evidence was inadmissible under the business records exception to the

hearsay rule, see Pa.R.E. 803(6), where an agency witness testified regarding the

process of obtaining documents from third parties, but “[n]o witness stated that she was able to speak to the mode of . . . the documents’ preparation, [or] testify that the

documents were created at or near the time of the documented event or conversation, or

made in the regular practice of the activity”).

[J-13A-2025 and J-13B-2025] - 2