-
J-S58044-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: E.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: E.A., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 877 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Dated May 5, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): TPR 173 of 2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., AND PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 er entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Mother raises one issue for our review: DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND/OR ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT TERMINATION OF [MOTH S WOULD SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF CHILD PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(B)? The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental rights cases are as follows: _____________________________ *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S58044-14 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, decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in orde decision is supported by competent evidence. 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 party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. If the trial c are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the opposite result. In re Adoption of K.J.,
936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied,
597 Pa. 718,
951 A.2d 1165(2008) (internal citations omitted). See also In re Adoption of C.L.G.,
956 A.2d 999, 1003-04 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Alexander P. -2- J-S58044-14 discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed June 27, 2014, at 4-12) (finding: Mother challenges only rmination under Section 2511(b);1 Child has special needs and significant developmental delays due to brain injuries and will require significant care and attention in future; Dr. Patricia Pepe indicated that Mother has been unable to meet expectations for parenting and did not exhibit individual stability to parent; CYF caseworker Jaime Greenberg which continue to ex needs, and Child has made progress in their care; Child is bonded to foster parents exhibit excellent parenting skills and are willing to adopt Child; court found involuntary ter evidence).2 Order affirmed. 1 Mother concedes on appeal that the Allegheny County Office of Children, See 2 The correct citation for In re S.D.T., Jr. is
934 A.2d 703(Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied,
597 Pa. 68,
950 A.2d 270(2008). -3- J-S58044-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 9/15/2014 -4- Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM Circulated 09/03/2014 09:41 AM
Document Info
Docket Number: 877 WDA 2014
Filed Date: 9/15/2014
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021