Court Opinion

ID: 9381728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 16:08:10.753933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.209593
License: Public Domain

J-S05002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: G.V., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: B.A.V. MOTHER                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1214 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                       No(s): CP-02-AP-0000024-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

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

       B.A.V. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on September 19, 2022,

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

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

rights to G.V. (Child), born in February of 2020, pursuant to sections

2511(a)(2), (5), (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 two issues for our review:

          1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a
             matter of law in granting the petition to involuntarily
             terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §
             2511 (a)(2), (5), and (8)?

____________________________________________

1 J.T.B., Jr.’s (Father) parental rights to Child were also terminated at the
same time that Mother’s rights were terminated. However, Father did not
appeal from the trial court’s order and is not a party to this appeal.
J-S05002-23

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

Mother’s brief at 6.

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

applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable

Paul E. Cozza of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’

Court Division, filed on November 14, 2022.       Initially, we note that Judge

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

applicable standard of review and relevant caselaw, and an analysis of the

issues raised by Mother, including the facts relied upon that support the factual

basis for the decision. We conclude that Judge Cozza’s well-reasoned opinion

properly disposes of the two issues raised by Mother. Of particular note, the

trial court’s opinion discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings

held during the two-year pendency of this matter that was supplied by a

number of caseworkers and Dr. Terry O’Hara, the court appointed

psychologist, who completed evaluations of Mother, Child and the foster

parents.    Moreover, the trial court indicated that Mother’s mental health

problems were relatively stable when she is in a highly structured program,

but that at other times she overlooked her problems and was inactive in

seeking help when not in such a program. 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

                                      -2-
J-S05002-23

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 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (stating

that 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 this case, the court’s credibility determinations are

supported by an overwhelming majority of the evidence.            Accordingly, we

adopt Judge Cozza’s opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from

on that basis.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2023

                                       -3-
Circulated 03/14/2023 09:31 AM