J-A24007-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF H.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER : No. 1188 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Domestic Relations at No(s): 38 OCA 2013
IN RE: ADOPTION OF R.M.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER : No. 1189 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Domestic Relations at No(s): 39 OCA 2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., AND PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
appeals from the orders entered in the
Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated his
affirm.
In its opinion filed March 11, 2014, the trial court fully and correctly
set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore,
we have no reason to restate them. We add only that Father timely filed
notices of appeal, from the orders involuntarily terminating his parental _____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A24007-14
rights, on April 9, 2014, along with concise statements of errors complained
of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID [MOTHER] FAIL TO EXHIBIT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT [FATHER] HAD EVIDENCED A SETTLED PURPOSE OF RELINQUISHING PARENTAL CLAIM TO HIS CHILDREN?
A. DID THE COURT FAIL TO FOCUS ON THE ENTIRE SITUATION EXISTING PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE TERMINATION PETITION, AND FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE NUMEROUS EFFORTS [FATHER] MADE TO ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP AND FULFILL PARENTAL DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO HIS CHILDREN WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY MOTHER?
B. DID THE COURT FAIL TO GIVE ANY WEIGHT TO THE CONSISTENT CHILD SUPPORT THAT [FATHER]
SEPARATION, THE FACT THAT [FATHER] KEPT A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY ON HIMSELF TO BENEFIT THE CHILDREN, AND PAID THE PREMIUMS?
DID THE COURT FAIL TO ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS
POOR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER AS A STRONG INDICATION THAT HE DOES NOT EXHIBIT THE REQUISITE DEDICATION TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL FATHERING RESPONSIBILITIES?
The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental
rights cases are as follows:
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,
J-A24007-14
decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental
the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
decision is supported by competent evidence.
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] finder of fact.