Opinion
J-S84002-18 No. 2499 EDA 2018 No. 2505 EDA 2018 No. 2506 EDA 2018
04-01-2019
IN RE: B.J.Z. APPEAL OF: D.V., MOTHER IN RE: N.M.Z. APPEAL OF: D.V., MOTHER IN RE: C.J.Z. APPEAL OF: D.V., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No(s): CV-2017-09114 Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No(s): CV-2017-09116 Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No(s): CV-2017-09115 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
D.V. ("Mother") appeals from the decrees entered on July 24, 2018, that granted the petitions filed by the Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services Agency ("Agency") to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her minor children, B.J.Z. (born in November of 2013), C.J.Z. (born in August of 2011), and N.M.Z. (born in November of 2009), (collectively "Children"), pursuant to sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938., , We affirm.
The orphans' court issued the decrees on July 18, 2018 at case numbers 2499, 2505, and 2506 EDA 2018; however, the decrees were not entered on the docket until July 24, 2018. The appeals at 2499, 2505, and 2506 EDA 2018 were subsequently consolidated sua sponte by per curiam order of this Court, as all of these matters involve related parties and issues. Order, 9/24/18.
The parental rights of Children's father, J.Z. ("Father"), were terminated by separate decrees entered on the same date. Father has filed separate appeals. See Docket Nos. 2471, 2492, and 2496 EDA 2018.
A guardian ad litem ("GAL"), Emily Ward, Esquire, and a child advocate, Linda Shick, Esquire, were appointed to represent the best interests and the legal interests of Children. Both attorneys participated in the termination hearing and filed briefs in this appeal.
In her brief, Mother sets forth the following question for our review:
Should the [orphans'] [c]ourt be reversed when [the Agency] has not met the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8) because [the Agency] has not produced clear and convincing evidence that ... [C]hildren were not bonded, that the termination of ... [M]other's parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of ... [C]hildren, or that she is unable to remedy the issues that caused ... [C]hildren to be taken into care?Mother's Brief at 4.
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 Gary B. Gilman of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Orphans' Court Division, filed on September 26, 2018. We conclude that Judge Gilman's thorough, well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Gilman's opinion as our own and affirm the decrees appealed from on that basis.
Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/1/19
Image materials not available for display.