In the Interest of: A.P., Appeal of: B.T. ( 2023 )

J-S14016-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.P., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: B.T., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 15 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered November 30, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000138-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 23, 2023
B.T. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on November 30, 2022,
that granted the petition filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,
Youth and Families (CYF) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights
to A.P. (Child), born in November of 2019, pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2),
(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 issue for our review:
1. 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
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 R.P.’s (Father) and an Unknown Father’s parental rights to Child were also
terminated at the same time that Mother’s rights were terminated. Neither
Father nor an Unknown Father appealed from the trial court’s order and are
not parties to this appeal.
J-S14016-23
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the [C]hild
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?
Mother’s brief at 6.
387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).
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. Id. 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
-2-
J-S14016-23
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
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable
Eleanor L. Bush of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’
Court Division, dated January 25, 2023. Initially, we note that Judge Bush
provided an extensive recitation of the history of this case, the applicable
standard of review and relevant caselaw, and an analysis of the issue raised
by Mother, including the facts relied upon that support the factual basis for
the decision. We conclude that Judge Bush’s well-reasoned opinion properly
disposes of the issue raised by Mother.
Of particular note, the trial court’s opinion discusses the testimony
provided at the termination hearing by Dr. Beth Bliss, the expert evaluator,
and a number of caseworkers who were involved with this matter over the
three-year period since Child’s birth. Moreover, the trial court indicated that,
while Mother’s substance abuse and mental health problems continued, Child
was thriving in her foster home. 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 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 at 73-74 (stating that the trial court is free to believe all, part,
-3-
J-S14016-23
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 Bush’s opinion as our own and affirm
the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/23/2023
-4-