In the Matter of: L.Z., Appeal of: L.Z.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that - 20 - J-A14033-24 & J-A14034-24 doctor’s testimony, that bruising “couldn’t have been comfortable,” “conveyed, albeit in a flippant manner, that the injuries caused severe pain”
• emphasizing that a parent is responsible for the care and protection of a child in his or her care, “whether they actually inflicted the injury or failed in their duty to protect the child”
• section 6381(d) presumption “can be rebutted, like other statutory presumptions, with countervailing competent, substantial evidence”
• “With respect to findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court, the standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept (Footnote Continued Next Page
• inclusion of word “omissions” in section 6381(d), encompasses situations where parent or responsible person is not present at time of injury but is, nonetheless, responsible due to his or her failure to provide protection for child
• “[P]rima facie evidence is ‘[s]uch evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).