Opinion
J-S78014-16 No. 642 WDA 2016
11-15-2016
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: K.D. A/K/A K.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: S.D.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered April 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000151-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
S.D. (Father) appeals from the order entered on April 13, 2016, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his daughter, K.D. (Child), born in December of 2011. We affirm.
On appeal, Father's brief provides the following question for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that Allegheny County Children, Youth and Families [(CYF)] met its burden of proving that termination of [Father's] [p]arental [r]ights would meet the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) by clear and convincing evidence?Father's brief at 5.
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., 985 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. at 276 (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).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Dwayne D. Woodruff of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, filed on July 14, 2016. We conclude that Judge Woodruff's well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issue raised by Father. In particular, Judge Woodruff recognized that, although a bond existed between Father and Child, Child has essentially lived with Maternal Grandmother most of her life and that Grandmother was the person that Child has relied upon to fulfill her daily needs. The court also noted that Father never provided long-term care of Child or maintained regular contact with Child, even when he was in a position to do so. The court also relied on the testimony of Kathryn Quinn, the CYF caseworker, who reported that she did not believe that the termination of Father's parental rights would significantly impact Child. The trial court agreed, concluding that the termination of Father's parental rights would best serve Child's needs and welfare. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013) (stating that in cases dealing with termination of parental rights, the law should be applied "with an eye to the best interests and the needs and welfare of the particular children involved"). Thus, we conclude that Judge Woodruff's opinion properly disposes of the issue Father raises in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Woodruff's opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/15/2016
Image materials not available for display.