J-S64045-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF H.R.W. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.T.W. : No. 1103 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order June 9, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 3 Adopt 2014
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and LAZARUS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014
Appellant, D.T.W. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the
Fayette County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated his
parental rights to his minor daughter, H.R.W. (“Child”). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Procedurally, on January 24, 2014, Mother filed a petition for involuntary
termination of Father’s parental rights. The court held a termination hearing
on April 25, 2014. On May 8, 2014, the court granted Mother’s petition.
The court amended the termination order on June 9, 2014. Father timely
filed a notice of appeal on July 8, 2014, along with a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY ABUSING ITS
DISCRETION IN TERMINATING THE NATURAL
FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AS [MOTHER] FAILED
J-S64045-14
TO SUSTAIN HER BURDEN OF PROOF BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO WARRANT THE
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.
DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT [ERROR] IN
INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATING THE NATURAL
FATHER’S RIGHTS WHERE FATHER WAS
INCARCERATED AND ALL HIS EFFORTS TO
CONTINUE INVOLVEMENT IN CARE AND CONTROL
OF HIS CHILD [WERE] DISREGARDED AND
THWARTED BY [MOTHER].
WAS THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING FATHER’S
PARENTING SKILLS AND THE EXISTENCE OF A
PARENTAL BOND BETWEEN FATHER AND CHILD
INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE ALL EVIDENCE ON THIS
MATTER WAS BASED ON CONJECTURE INSTEAD OF
OBSERVATIONS MADE DUE TO HIS
INCARCERATION.
DID [MOTHER] FAIL TO SUSTAIN [HER] BURDEN OF
PROOF BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO
WARRANT THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.
(Father’s Brief at 1).
The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental
rights cases are as follows:
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 it 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.
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of
J-S64045-14
fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses
and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the]
finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking
termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence
the existence of grounds for doing so.
The standard of clear and convincing evidence means
testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis
exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings
are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the
court’s decision, even though the record could support an
opposite result.
In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Linda R.
Cordaro, we conclude Father’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial
Court Opinion, filed June 6, 2014, at 2-6) (finding: Father saw Child only
twice since 2008, and has not maintained bond with Child; even when not
incarcerated, Father showed minimal interest, if any, in parental rights and
duties toward Child; Father provided no financial support or gifts to Child;
Father’s infrequent contact with Child on Christmas and Child’s birthday does
not demonstrate intent by Father to maintain or promote significant role in
Child’s life; Father failed to utilize available resources in prison; Father has
not made reasonable efforts to overcome obstacles to preserve parental
J-S64045-14
relationship with Child; Mother’s fiancé intends to adopt Child; Mother’s
fiancé provides care and financial support for Child, and has close
relationship with Child; guardian ad litem stated termination of Father’s
parental rights to facilitate adoption by Mother’s fiancé will serve Child’s best
interests; termination of Father’s parental rights is proper under Section
2511(a)(1) and (b)).1 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/10/2014
1
We note Father failed to present a separate argument section in his
appellate brief for each question to be argued, in contravention with
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating argument shall be divided into as many parts as
there are questions to be argued; and shall have at head of each part,
particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent).