S.A.S. v. S.E.B.
This text of S.A.S. v. S.E.B. (S.A.S. v. S.E.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-A29003-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
S.A.S. AND ON BEHALF OF MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHILD, : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : v. : : S.E.B. : Nos. 325, 337 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Dated February 9, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court, No(s): FD-15-008183-010
BEFORE: DUBOW, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JANUARY 11, 2017
Respectfully, I dissent to the result reached by the Majority. I am
aware that in interpreting Section 6107, this Court has held that the word
"shall" in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6107 (a) mandates that a final evidentiary hearing
must be conducted within ten days of filing the Petition. Drew v. Drew, 870
A.2d 377, 378 (Pa. Super. 2005); Burke ex rel Burke v. Bauman, 814
A.2d 206, 208 (Pa. Super. 2002). However, in this case, the trial court
determined that Mother had previously litigated the same claims raised in
the instant Petition. Further, Mother was afforded due process, as the
claims were the subject of a five-day hearing, less than two months prior to
the filing of the instant Petition. In this case, remanding for additional
hearings on the same claims is an absolute waste of judicial time and
resources. Section 6107(a) affords due process to the PFA petitioner. It
does not envision repeated bites at the same apple.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
S.A.S. v. S.E.B., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sas-v-seb-pasuperct-2017.