custody - guardian ad litem - amendments to Rule 1915.11-2 - child's statements to GAL, etc.

Order

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Order%20-%20105416473210472653.pdf?cb=1

 

Committee adoption report

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%201%20-%20105416473210472566.pdf?cb=1

 

Rule 1915.11-2

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/Attachment%202%20-%20105416473210472643.pdf?cb=1

 

From the adoption report –

On January 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amended Pa.R.Civ.P. 1915.11-2 and 1915.21, which address the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) in a custody action, as authorized by 23 Pa.C.S. § 5334. Specifically, the amendments permit a GAL to include the subject child’s statement to the GAL in the GAL’s report, and to testify at trial about the statement as well, provided the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 703 are satisfied. The Committee has prepared this Adoption Report describing the rulemaking process. An Adoption Report should not be confused with Comments to the rules. See Pa.R.J.A. 103, cmt. The statements contained in this Adoption Report are those of the Committee, not the Court. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UC - willful misconduct - pushing co-worker - justifiable provocation

Reading School District v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court. – January 20, 2023 – not reported**

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1644CD19_1-20-23.pdf?cb=1

 

Held: Claimant was not justifiably provoked  in pushing a co-worker who had subjected her to abusive or personally offensive language.  

An employee’s actions are justifiably provoked only when an employee (1) reasonably believes he is threatened with physical harm; (2) is directly targeted by severe, intimidating, loud, and aggressive speech; or (3) is subjected to intentional provocation in order to fabricate justification to fire the employee. See Sun Oil Co. v. UCBR., 408 A.2d 1169, 1170-1171(Pa. Cmwlth. 1979); Wisniewski v. UCBR., 383 A.2d 254, 255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978). ; Kowal v. UCBR, 512 A.2d 812, 813-14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). ; Jose Perez, 736 A.2d at 742. 

++++++++ 

** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).