In the Interest of: N.B.-A., of: E.A.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In the Interest of: N.B.-A., of: E.A.

208 A.3d 59

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 6, 2019

Docket120 EAL 2019 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.3d 59 (In the Interest of: N.B.-A., of: E.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of: N.B.-A., of: E.A., 208 A.3d 59 (Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err by affirming the trial court's finding that Mother was a perpetrator of child abuse in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused or created a likelihood of sexual abuse through a recent act or failure to act?

(2) Did the Superior Court commit an error of law by applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) to find that DHS established a prima facie case that Mother was responsible for the abuse perpetrated against N.B.-A. where another individual had been identified as the direct perpetrator?

(3) Did the Superior Court commit an abuse of discretion by finding that Mother failed to rebut the prima facie presumption that she was a perpetrator of child abuse pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d)?

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

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err by affirming the trial court's finding that Mother was a perpetrator of child abuse in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused or created a likelihood of sexual abuse through a recent act or failure to act?

(2) Did the Superior Court commit an error of law by applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) to find that DHS established a prima facie case that Mother was responsible for the abuse perpetrated against N.B.-A. where another individual had been identified as the direct perpetrator?

(3) Did the Superior Court commit an abuse of discretion by finding that Mother failed to rebut the prima facie presumption that she was a perpetrator of child abuse pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d)?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.3d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-nb-a-of-ea-pa-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack