In the Int. of: T.H. Appeal of: S.W.
In the Int. of: T.H. Appeal of: S.W.
Opinion
J-S05031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1364 WDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered October 19, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000046-2023
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: March 7, 2024 S.W. (Mother) appeals from the order entered October 19, 2023, that granted the petition filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (Agency) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to T.H. (Child), born in May of 2019, 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 sets forth the following 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)(1), (2), (5), and (8)? ____________________________________________
1 Notably, the Agency has been involved with this family since March of 2021, when it received reports concerning domestic violence against both Mother and Child. Additionally, Father’s parental rights were terminated and he did not appeal.
J-S05031-24
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that [Agency] 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 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
-2- J-S05031-24
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).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Jennifer McCrady of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, filed on December 15, 2023. We conclude that Judge McCrady’s well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother.2 Specifically, the trial court extensively discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings held in this matter, including information about Child’s special needs and the many referrals and services provided throughout this case for both Mother and Child.
Essentially, Mother’s arguments center on challenging the trial court’s findings that Agency had met its burden under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b), and claiming that the record evidence does not support the termination of her parental rights. However, our standard of review prohibits this Court from overturning the trial court’s findings so long as they are supported by the evidence. In this case, the court’s determinations are supported by an overwhelming majority of the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge
____________________________________________
2 While Judge McCrady suggests that waiver should be found due to Mother’s vague concise statement, we decline to find waiver on this basis, as Judge McCrady was able to sufficiently address the merits of Mother’s issues in her opinion. Thus, we do not endorse that limited aspect of her opinion.
-3- J-S05031-24
McCrady’s opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed.
DATE: 3/7/2024
-4- Circulated 02/15/2024 11:13 AM
Opinion
J-S05031-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1364 WDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered October 19, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000046-2023
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: March 7, 2024 S.W. (Mother) appeals from the order entered October 19, 2023, that granted the petition filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (Agency) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to T.H. (Child), born in May of 2019, 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 sets forth the following 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)(1), (2), (5), and (8)? ____________________________________________
1 Notably, the Agency has been involved with this family since March of 2021, when it received reports concerning domestic violence against both Mother and Child. Additionally, Father’s parental rights were terminated and he did not appeal.
J-S05031-24
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that [Agency] 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 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
-2- J-S05031-24
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).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Jennifer McCrady of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, filed on December 15, 2023. We conclude that Judge McCrady’s well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother.2 Specifically, the trial court extensively discusses the testimony provided at the various hearings held in this matter, including information about Child’s special needs and the many referrals and services provided throughout this case for both Mother and Child.
Essentially, Mother’s arguments center on challenging the trial court’s findings that Agency had met its burden under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b), and claiming that the record evidence does not support the termination of her parental rights. However, our standard of review prohibits this Court from overturning the trial court’s findings so long as they are supported by the evidence. In this case, the court’s determinations are supported by an overwhelming majority of the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Judge
____________________________________________
2 While Judge McCrady suggests that waiver should be found due to Mother’s vague concise statement, we decline to find waiver on this basis, as Judge McCrady was able to sufficiently address the merits of Mother’s issues in her opinion. Thus, we do not endorse that limited aspect of her opinion.
-3- J-S05031-24
McCrady’s opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed.
DATE: 3/7/2024
-4- Circulated 02/15/2024 11:13 AM
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.