In the Matter of A.S.-A.R., Appeal of: J.L.R. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • J-S39014-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY                IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO                     PENNSYLVANIA
    A.S-A.R. AND P.N.R.
    APPEAL OF: J.L.R., NATURAL FATHER
    No. 162 WDA 2014
    Appeal from the Decrees December 27, 2013
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County
    Orphans' Court at No(s):
    O.C.D. NO. 190-2013
    O.C.D. NO. 191-2013
    BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., WECHT, J. and PLATT, J.*
    MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                      FILED AUGUST 29, 2014
    parental rights to A.S-A.R. (born in April of 2002) and P.N.R. (born in May of
    affirm.
    which they asserted inter alia that Stepfather wished to adopt the Children.
    A hearing was held on October 1, 2013, after which the court granted the
    termination petitions. See
    timely notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors complained of on
    appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Thereafter, Father filed a Motion
    to Amend Concise Statement with this Court, which we granted. This Court
    directed that the record should be remanded to allow the trial court to file an
    amended Rule 1925(a) opinion responding to the additional issues raised by
    *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-S39014-14
    See
    The matter is now ripe for review.
    Father raises three issues for our review:
    1. The [c]ourt erred in determining that evidence so clear,
    direct, weighty, and convincing was presented to enable the fact
    finder to come to a clear decision without hesitancy that the
    [c]ourt failed to consider other factors in making its
    determination including the nature of the relationship between
    the father and minor children prior to incarceration and the
    incarcerated and the natural[] m
    2.   The [c]ourt erred in determining the best interests of the
    rights.
    3. The [c]ourt erred when it improperly considered extremely
    prejudicial evidence not presented or properly before the [c]ourt
    commercial burglaries which occurred after the hearing and were
    not made part of the record as well as statements from another
    jurisdiction made at sentencing hearing and other evidence that
    was not presented or properly before the [c]ourt for
    consideration.
    When considering an appeal from an order involuntarily terminating
    parental rights, we are guided by the following:
    In cases involving termination of parental rights, our scope of
    review is broad. All of the evidence, as well as the trial court's
    factual and legal determinations, are to be considered.
    However, our standard of review is limited to determining
    -2-
    J-S39014-14
    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. We have always been deferential to the trial court as the
    fact finder, as the determiner of the credibility of witnesses, and
    as the sole and final arbiter of all conflicts in the evidence. In re
    S.D.T., Jr., 
    934 A.2d 703
    , 705-06 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal
    denied, 
    597 Pa. 68
    , 
    950 A.2d 270
     (2008) (citations omitted).
    The burden of proof in a termination case is on the petitioning
    party, who must establish valid grounds for termination by clear
    and convincing evidence.
    In re E.M.I., 
    57 A.3d 1278
    , 1284 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re J.L.C.,
    
    837 A.2d 1247
    , 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
    We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
    applicable law, and the two comprehensive opinions authored by the
    Honorable Oliver J. Lobaugh of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango
    County, issued on December 27, 2013, and on March 12, 2014.                      We
    -reasoned opinions properly
    dispose of the issues raised by Father.            Accordingly, we adopt Judge
    basis.
    Decrees affirmed.
    -3-
    J-S39014-14
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/29/2014
    -4-
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    Circulated 08/20/2014 09:15 AM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 162 WDA 2014

Filed Date: 8/29/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021