CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT FATHER FAILED TO PERFORM PARENTAL DUTIES FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX MONTHS?
WHERE CHILD WAS PLACED BECAUSE OF MOTHER'S ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF THE CHILD DURING A DOMESTIC DISPUTE, MOTHER WAS CONVICTED OF FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT, FATHER WAS CLEARED OF CHARGES, AND FATHER REFRAINED FROM INVOLVEMENT IN DOMESTIC DISPUTES, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ITS FINDING THAT [CYS] PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT FATHER FAILED TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS AND CAUSES OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE, AND REMOVAL OF THE CHILD?
WHERE FATHER COMPLETED THE COUNSELING, PARENTING AND ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES IN THE FAMILY SERVICE PLAN, HAD TAKEN ADDITIONAL CLASSES ON HIS OWN, SEPARATED FROM MOTHER AND REFRAINED FROM DOMESTIC DISPUTES, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ITS FINDING THAT [CYS] PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD?
WHERE [CYS'] WITNESS TESTIFIED TO A SIGNIFICANT BOND BETWEEN FATHER AND CHILD, FATHER TOOK STEPS TO MINIMIZE END-OF-VISIT TRAUMA TO THE CHILD, AND THE TRIAL COURT INSTEAD FOCUSED ON THE CHILD'S BOND WITH HER FOSTER PARENTS, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT TERMINATION OF FATHER'S RIGHTS BEST SERVED THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE CHILD?
WHERE FATHER REFRAINED FROM INVOLVEMENT IN INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE AND CONTINUED TO COMPLY WITH THE FAMILY SERVICE PLAN, SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE FIRST TERMINATION PETITION, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CHARACTERIZING THESE EFFORTS AS "POST-PETITION"?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHERE ITS FINDINGS OF
J-S10001-16
FACT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO DETERMINE THAT FATHER WAS REPRESENTED BY INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL, WHERE FATHER WAS PREJUDICED BY COUNSEL'S NUMEROUS ERRORS, INCLUDING FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY CYS, AND GATHERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD REBUFF THOSE ASSERTIONS?
(Father's Brief at 3-4).
Appellate review in termination of parental rights cases implicates the
following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: "our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child."
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. ... 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
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. The burden of proof is on the