Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 3/23/2009

In re I.J.

Citations

972 A.2d 5
2009 Pa. Super. 48
2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 57

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the orphans’ court erred by “improperly conflat[ing] the statutory requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5) with those of subsection (a)(8)”
indicating that Mother was unemployed and would need to begin paying rent to remain in the housing provided by Mission in April 2024
concluding lower court conflated requirements of subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5) with (a)(8); rejecting “significant strides” remedying some conditions
stating that “the strength of emotional bond between a child and a potential adoptive parent is an important consideration in a ‘best interests’ analysis.”
stating that a child’s needs for permanence and stability cannot be subordinated indefinitely to a parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future
holding progress toward FSP goals cannot form basis of best interests analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bender, Donohue, Freedberg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named In re I.J.

13 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.