Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Interest of Rhine

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 11, 1983No. 492 and 141Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWieand, Judge

I concur in the majority’s decision to remand for further proceedings. However, I do so because the lapse of time commands that another hearing be held and not because I find error in the trial court’s determination of January 21, 1981.

The court’s order of April 16, 1980 is moot. This order denied to appellants the right of visitation with their child, who had been previously adjudicated dependent, until September 3, 1980. That date has now passed, and the court’s order has been superseded by an order of January 21, 1981. This later order, entered after three separate hearings, deferred…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Stapleton v. Dauphin County Child Care ServiceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. In the Interest of PernishekSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Fernald v. FernaldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  5. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Sorace v. SoraceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API