In Re: E.A., a minor, Appeal of: E.A. ( 2014 )


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    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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