February 25, 2014
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.G.P., JR., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.N., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: G.A.P., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.N., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: G.M.P., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.N., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: L.A.P., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.N., MOTHER
Appeal from the Order Entered July 30, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000182-2013, CP-51-DP-0000337-2011, CP-51-AP-0000181-2013, CP-51-DP-0000336-2011, CP-51-AP-0000180-2013, CP-51-DP-0000335-2011, CP-51-AP-0000179-2013, CP-51-DP-0107169-2004
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., WECHT, J. AND STRASSBURGER, J.[*]
M.N. (Mother) appeals from the orders entered on July 30, 2013, that granted the petitions filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services, terminating Mother's parental rights to four of her minor children and changing the children's placement goals to adoption. We affirm.
In her brief, Mother sets forth the following question for our review:
Did the trial court err [by] determining that it was in the best interest[s] of the child[ren] to terminate [M]other's parental rights as [M]other had completed all of her FSP goals, had a strong bond with her children and had been receiving mental health treatment at the request of the Department of Human Services?
Mother'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:
[t]he 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 C. Wright of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, issued on October 17, 2013. We conclude that Judge Wright's thorough, well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issue raised by Mother. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Wright's opinion as our own and affirm the orders appealed from on that basis.