In Re: C.G.F., Jr., a Minor

J-S35004-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: C.G.F., JR., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: A.F., MOTHER :
:
: No. 663 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Decree Entered March 31, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans’ Court
at No(s): 66 AD 2021
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 03, 2022
A.F. (Mother) appeals from the decree entered March 31, 2022, that
granted the petition filed by the Dauphin County Social Services for Children
and Youth (Agency) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to
C.G.F., Jr. (Child), born in February of 2014, pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1),
(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.1 After
review, we affirm.
In her brief, Mother set forth the following issue for our review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, or commit an error of law by
determining it was in the [Child’s] best interest to have Mother’s
parental rights terminated by clear and convincing evidence?
Mother’s brief at 4.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The parental rights of C.G.F. (Father) were also terminated on the same
date; however, Father did not appeal the termination.
J-S35004-22
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., 958 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).
-2-
J-S35004-22
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable
John F. Cherry of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, filed on July
8, 2022. We conclude that Judge Cherry’s well-reasoned opinion properly
disposes of the issue raised by Mother.2 Specifically, the trial court’s opinion
extensively discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings held in
this matter, including the testimony given by a number of caseworkers from
the Agency, as well as that provided by the psychologists that treated Mother.
Essentially, Mother’s arguments center on the credibility determinations made
by the court, contending that the testimony put forth by her should have been
believed rather than the testimony provided by the Agency’s witnesses. 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. In this case, the court’s credibility determinations are supported by
an overwhelming majority of the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge
Cherry’s opinion as our own and affirm the decree appealed from on that basis.
____________________________________________
2 Notably, the Agency has been involved with this family since 2010. At the
time the termination petition concerning Child was filed, petitions relating to
six of Child’s siblings were also filed. Mother and Father voluntarily
relinquished their parental rights to these six children.
-3-
J-S35004-22
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/3/2022
-4-