Opinion
J-S35010-18 No. 331 MDA 2018
08-03-2018
S.W., Appellee v. S.F., Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 23, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Civil Division at No(s): 2009-FC-001342-12A BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
S.F. (Mother) appeals from the January 23, 2018 order that granted S.W.'s (Child) petition seeking a final protection from abuse (PFA) order. After review, we affirm.
Child's father, S.W. (Father), filed the PFA petition on Child's behalf.
In her brief, Mother lists the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and made an error of law under 23 P[a].C.S.[]. [§] 6107 when it did not allow [Child] to testify at the [PFA] [h]earing[?]
A. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt denied [Mother's] due process rights by not permitting [Child] to testify at the PFA hearing and denying [Mother] the opportunity to cross examine her accuser?
B. Whether the trial [c]ourt abused its discretion and made an error of law in relying upon testimony taken during an
ex-parte hearing that was not of record during the PFA hearing[?]
C. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and made an error of law in determining that sufficient evidence was presented at the PFA hearing to make a finding of abuse[?]
Mother's brief at 7.
II. Whether [Mother] waived her rights to object to due process violations and sufficiency of evidence arguments on appeal, for not objecting with specificity on the record[?]
"In reviewing the validity of a PFA order, we must determine whether the evidence, in the light most favorable to petitioner and granting her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, was sufficient to sustain the trial court's determination that abuse was shown by the preponderance of the evidence." R.G. v. T.D., 672 A.2d 341, 342 (Pa. Super. 1996). "Moreover, we must defer to the lower court's determination of the credibility of witnesses at the hearing." Id.
We have reviewed the certified record, Mother's brief, the applicable law, and the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable N. Christopher Menges of the York County Court of Common Pleas, dated March 13, 2018. We conclude that Judge Menges' opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Mother on appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Menges' opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
No brief was filed in support of Child's position as Appellee. --------
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 08/03/2018
Image materials not available for display.