In re M.L.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
757 A.2d 849 (2000)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
K. L. (plaintiff) and R. G. (defendant) never married but had a relationship that resulted in the birth of a child, M. L. A custody dispute ended with K. L. receiving primary physical custody and R. G. receiving partial custody every other weekend. Thereafter, K. L. began routinely contacting Children and Youth Services (CYS) to complain that R. G. failed to properly care for M. L. during her weekends with him. Additionally, K. L. subsequently alleged on six separate occasions that R. G. had sexually abused M. L. However, despite numerous physical examinations conducted at a hospital emergency room and a physician’s office, no abuse was ever validated. Instead, medical personnel reported that K. L.’s mental health had deteriorated to the point that she was subjecting M. L. to unnecessary physical examinations. Nevertheless, CYS filed a petition for dependency in trial court. Following two evidentiary hearings, the court declared M. L. to be a dependent child and concluded that K. L.’s mental-health issues were endangering M. L. The trial court placed M. L. in the care of R. G. R. G. readily accepted custody of M. L. but appealed the trial court’s declaration of M. L. as a dependent child. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
