Legal Opinion
Helsel v. Puricelli
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 21, 2007PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
JOHNSON, J.:
¶ 1 Daniel V. Helsel (“Grandfather”) appeals the trial court’s Order finding that he did not have standing to seek visitation with his grandchild. Grandfather argues that the trial court erred when it found a *254section of the Custody and Grandparent’s Visitation Act (“GVA”), 23 Pa.C.S. section 5301 et seq., did not confer standing upon him because the mother and father of the child (“Mother” and “Father”) were separated for a period of more than six months. After careful review and study, we find that the trial court correctly interpreted the relevant statutory language.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Herron v. SeizakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Liebner v. SimcoxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Bishop v. PillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Malone v. StonerookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
3Cited by7 opinions
- D.P. v. G.J.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- D.P. v. G.J.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- A.J.B. v. M.P.B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- A.J.B. v. M.P.B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- D.P. and B.P., Aplts. v. G.J.P. and A.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.