Court Opinion

ID: 9396792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 18:08:14.583415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.802891
License: Public Domain

J-S14016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: A.P., A MINOR :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :              PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
    APPEAL OF: B.T., MOTHER           :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :         No. 15 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 30, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                        No(s): CP-02-AP-0000138-2021

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                            FILED: MAY 23, 2023

        B.T. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on November 30, 2022,

that granted the petition filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,

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

to A.P. (Child), born in November of 2019, pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2),

(8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.1 After review, we

affirm.

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

       1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
          law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving by clear
          and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 R.P.’s (Father) and an Unknown Father’s parental rights to Child were also
terminated at the same time that Mother’s rights were terminated. Neither
Father nor an Unknown Father appealed from the trial court’s order and are
not parties to this appeal.
J-S14016-23

          rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the [C]hild
          pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?

Mother’s brief at 6.

387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

        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. Id. 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

                                       -2-
J-S14016-23

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

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

applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable

Eleanor L. Bush of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’

Court Division, dated January 25, 2023. Initially, we note that Judge Bush

provided an extensive recitation of the history of this case, the applicable

standard of review and relevant caselaw, and an analysis of the issue raised

by Mother, including the facts relied upon that support the factual basis for

the decision. We conclude that Judge Bush’s well-reasoned opinion properly

disposes of the issue raised by Mother.

      Of particular note, the trial court’s opinion discusses the testimony

provided at the termination hearing by Dr. Beth Bliss, the expert evaluator,

and a number of caseworkers who were involved with this matter over the

three-year period since Child’s birth. Moreover, the trial court indicated that,

while Mother’s substance abuse and mental health problems continued, Child

was thriving in her foster home. Essentially, Mother’s arguments appear to

center on the court’s credibility determinations, in that her discussion of the

facts is contrary to that set forth by the trial court. 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. See In re

M.G., 855 A.2d at 73-74 (stating that the trial court is free to believe all, part,

                                       -3-
J-S14016-23

or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make all credibility

determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence). In this case, the court’s

credibility determinations are supported by an overwhelming majority of the

evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bush’s opinion as our own and affirm

the order appealed from on that basis.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/23/2023

                                     -4-