J-S35004-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: C.G.F., JR., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.F., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 663 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered March 31, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans’ Court 

at No(s): 66 AD 2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 03, 2022

A.F. (Mother) appeals from the decree entered March 31, 2022, that 

granted the petition filed by the Dauphin County Social Services for Children 

and Youth (Agency) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to 

C.G.F., Jr. (Child), born in February of 2014, pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1), 

(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.

1

 After 

review, we affirm. 

In her brief, Mother set forth the following issue for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, or commit an error of law by 

determining it was in the [Child’s] best interest to have Mother’s 

parental rights terminated by clear and convincing evidence? 

Mother’s brief at 4. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The parental rights of C.G.F. (Father) were also terminated on the same 

date; however, Father did not appeal the termination. 
J-S35004-22

- 2 -

We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the 

following standard:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating 

parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the 

decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. 

Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient 

evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must 

stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily 

terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing 

judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury 

verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the 

record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is 

supported by competent evidence.

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879 

A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove 

by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the 

termination of parental rights are valid. R.N.J., 958 A.2d at 276. Moreover, 

we have explained that:

The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as 

testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without 

hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”

Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)). 

The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented 

and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts 

in the evidence. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If 

competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if 

the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 

835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003). 
J-S35004-22

- 3 -

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable 

John F. Cherry of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, filed on July 

8, 2022. We conclude that Judge Cherry’s well-reasoned opinion properly 

disposes of the issue raised by Mother.2 Specifically, the trial court’s opinion 

extensively discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings held in 

this matter, including the testimony given by a number of caseworkers from 

the Agency, as well as that provided by the psychologists that treated Mother. 

Essentially, Mother’s arguments center on the credibility determinations made 

by the court, contending that the testimony put forth by her should have been 

believed rather than the testimony provided by the Agency’s witnesses. Our 

standard of review prohibits this Court from overturning the trial court’s 

credibility determinations so long as its findings are supported by the evidence 

of record. In this case, the court’s credibility determinations are supported by 

an overwhelming majority of the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge 

Cherry’s opinion as our own and affirm the decree appealed from on that basis. 

____________________________________________

2 Notably, the Agency has been involved with this family since 2010. At the 

time the termination petition concerning Child was filed, petitions relating to 

six of Child’s siblings were also filed. Mother and Father voluntarily 

relinquished their parental rights to these six children.
J-S35004-22

- 4 -

Decree affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/3/2022