Opinion
108 WDA 2023 109 WDA 2023 J-S14017-23
05-30-2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J.W.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.L.D., MOTHER IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO A.J.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.L.D., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree Entered December 27, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Orphans' Court at No(s): O.C.D. No. 130-2020, O.C.D. No. 129-2020
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J. [*]
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
C.L.D. ("Mother") appeals from the decrees entered on December 27, 2022, that granted the petitions filed by Venango County Children and Youth Services ("CYF" or "Agency") to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to J.W.D., born in September of 2018, and A.J.D., born in October of 2017, (collectively "Children"), pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. Following review, we affirm. In her brief, Mother lists the following two issues for our review:
K.E.D.'s ("Father") parental rights to Children were voluntarily terminated by decrees, dated November 12, 2021, and entered on November 15, 2021. Father is not a party to the present appeals.
Because these matters involve related parties and issues, this Court consolidated these two appeals by order entered on February 14, 2023. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion when it granted CYF's petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights absent clear and convincing evidence that the Child[ren] [were] removed from the care of the Mother by the court for at least six months and the conditions which led to the Child[ren]'s removal continue to exist and that the Mother cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time and the services and assistance reasonably available to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the Child[ren] within a reasonable period of time?
2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion in determining that terminating [Mother's] parental rights was in the best interest of the Child[ren] despite being against the weight of the evidence presented?Mother's brief at 8.
We review a decree 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. Id. 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 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 Edward D. Reibman, Senior Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County, filed on December 27, 2022. We conclude that Judge Reibman's well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother. Specifically, the trial court's opinion extensively discusses the facts provided at the various hearings held in this matter. Essentially, Mother's arguments center on the credibility determinations made by the court, contending that her testimony should have been believed rather than the testimony provided by the Agency's witnesses. In other words, she avers that if the court had believed her testimony, it would have concluded that her substance abuse, housing, and mental health issues, have not continued so that the Children could have been returned to her care, which would have been in their best interests. Our 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 at 73-74 (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). Our review reveals that the court's credibility determinations are supported by the overwhelming majority of the evidence. Therefore, we adopt Judge Reibman's opinion as our own and affirm the decrees appealed from on that basis.
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.