Sutliff v. Sutliff

I dissent from the majority’s finding that the trial court’s preclusion of cross-examination of the parties’ minor child, Laura Sutliff, requires us to vacate the court’s order and *203remand the case so that appellant may cross-examine Laura.

Based on the trial court’s familiarity with the case and the parties, I find that the ruling, if error, is harmless. A party is entitled to a fair hearing, not a perfect one. To constitute reversible error, a ruling on evidence must be not only erroneous, but harmful to the party complaining. Anderson v. Hughes, 417 Pa. 87, 208 A.2d 789 (1965). In reviewing…