Legal Opinion

Ramer v. Ramer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 11, 2006PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION PER CURIAM:

¶ 1 Pamela L. Ramer (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order granting primary physical custody of C.R. and M.R. (“the Children”) to Keith Ramer (“Father”). In support of her appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred when it failed to consider Father’s criminal convictions, when it failed to appoint a qualified individual to evaluate and counsel Fáther and when it rested its decision upon offers of proof by counsel instead of testimony from witnesses. After careful review and study, we find that the trial court did not fulfill the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. sections…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CastilloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Commonwealth v. LassiterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Johnson v. MartofelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Fritz v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Giles v. DouglassSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re L.M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. K.T. v. L.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. E.B. v. D.B.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. K.T. v. L.S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API