In Re: A.K. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S17015-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: A.K. APPEAL OF: L.K. (N) : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1531 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Dated November 1, 2010 In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Orphans Court at No. 12 Adoption 2008 BEFORE: BENDER, J., MUNDY, J. AND STRASSBURGER*, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J.: Filed: April 29, 2013 L.K. (N.) (Mother) appeals from the order dated November 1, 2010, which granted the petition filed by the Somerset County Children and Youth Services (SCCYS) terminating Mother s parental rights to her minor child, A.K., who was born in July of 2006. We affirm. On appeal, Mother s brief provides the following question for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting the petition to involuntarily terminate Mother s parental rights under 23 [Pa.C.S.] ยง 2511(a)(1) when the evidence did not establish a settled purpose to relinquish parental rights because she was gainfully employed, making progress with her goals, drug free, in compliance with the family service plan, and missed visits as a result of the agency s miscommunication and refusal to work with Mother? 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 *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S17015-13 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. 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 David C. Klementik of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, filed J-S17015-13 on November 13, 2012. We conclude that Judge Klementik s thorough, wellreasoned opinion properly disposes of the issue raised by Mother. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Klementik s opinion as our own and affirm the decree appealed from on that basis. Order affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
