The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month over whether a trial court had the authority to declare a litigant mentally ill without expert testimony or a professional diagnosis to back it up—but several justices appeared unconvinced that’s what actually happened in the first place.
The case stems from a child custody dispute in which Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kim D. Eaton determined that the mother had a “severe, undiagnosed and untreated mental illness” and referred her for a psychiatric evaluation. The mother appealed to the state Supreme Court after the Superior Court in February determined that the trial court acted within its discretion in making the ruling, despite expert testimony that the woman did not appear to have “any significant physical condition, mental health, or drug or alcohol problem.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
