J-S05002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: G.V., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: B.A.V. MOTHER : : : : : No. 1214 WDA 2022 Appeal from the Order Entered September 19, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000024-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: March 23, 2023 B.A.V. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on September 19, 2022, that granted the petition filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF or CYF) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to G.V. (Child), born in February of 2020, pursuant to sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (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 two issues for our review: 1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in granting the petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(2), (5), and (8)?

____________________________________________

1 J.T.B., Jr.’s (Father) parental rights to Child were also terminated at the same time that Mother’s rights were terminated. However, Father did not appeal from the trial court’s order and is not a party to this appeal.

J-S05002-23

2. 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 rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?

Mother’s brief at 6.

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Paul E. Cozza of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, filed on November 14, 2022. Initially, we note that Judge Cozza provided an extensive recitation of the history of this case, the applicable standard of review and relevant caselaw, and an analysis of the issues raised by Mother, including the facts relied upon that support the factual basis for the decision. We conclude that Judge Cozza’s well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the two issues raised by Mother. Of particular note, the trial court’s opinion discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings held during the two-year pendency of this matter that was supplied by a number of caseworkers and Dr. Terry O’Hara, the court appointed psychologist, who completed evaluations of Mother, Child and the foster parents. Moreover, the trial court indicated that Mother’s mental health problems were relatively stable when she is in a highly structured program, but that at other times she overlooked her problems and was inactive in seeking help when not in such a program. 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

-2- J-S05002-23

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 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (stating that 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 this case, the court’s credibility determinations are supported by an overwhelming majority of the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Cozza’s opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2023

-3- Circulated 03/14/2023 09:31 AM