Legal Opinion
In the Int of: D.C.D./ Appeal of: Clinton Co C&YS
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 15, 2014No. 56 MAP 2014PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice BAER.
In this children’s fast-track appeal, we consider the decision of the Superior Court holding that a termination of parental rights petition filed by a children and youth services agency must be denied if the agency failed to employ “reasonable *329efforts” to reunify a child with her parent. As discussed below, while there are remedies available to a court faced with an agency which is not providing reasonable efforts, refusing a properly proven termination of parental rights petition, and thus harming an innocent child, is not among them. Accordingly, we reverse the order of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- In re Adoption of S.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Hiller v. FauseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- In the Interest of R.J.T.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- In Re the Adoption of G.T.M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re: A.J.R.-H. and I.G.R.-H. Apl of KJR MotherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- In re T.S.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- In re D.F., H.F., M.F. and D.F., JuvenilesSupreme Court of Vermont · 2018
- San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. A.J. (In re A.G.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Adoption of: A.A., Appeal of: K.A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.