Opinion
J-S58030-19 No. 884 WDA 2019
12-30-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.F., NATURAL MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated May 16, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-067-2019 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
T.F. (Mother) appeals from the order dated May 15, 2019, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her son, D.F. (Child), born in August of 2017. We affirm.
On appeal, Mother's brief provides the following question for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that termination of [n]atural Mother's parental rights would serve the needs and welfare of the Child, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?Mother's brief at 6.
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., 985 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).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Cathleen Bubash of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, filed on August 1, 2019. We conclude that Judge Bubash's well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issue raised by Mother. In particular, Judge Bubash recognized that no bond existed between Mother and Child in that Child has lived with foster parents almost exclusively for nearly his entire life and that foster parents are the people that Child has relied upon to fulfill his daily needs. The court noted that Mother has not provided any care of Child and has not attempted to maintain any contact with Child. The court also relied on the testimony of Dr. Patricia Pepe, who performed numerous psychological evaluations of Child and foster parents, and concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights and adoption by foster parents would best serve the needs and welfare of Child. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013) (stating that in cases dealing with termination of parental rights, the law should be applied "with an eye to the best interests and the needs and welfare of the particular children involved"). Thus, we conclude that Judge Bubash's opinion properly disposes of the issue Mother raises in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Bubash's opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/30/2019
Image materials not available for display.