In Int. of: J.D.M. Appeal of: N.M., Mother (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J. A14008/14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION IN INT. OF: J.D.M. APPEAL OF: N.M., MOTHER, Appellant SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 42 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order, December 10, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Domestic Relations Division at No. CP 28 DP 33-2012 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.D.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: N.M., MOTHER, Appellant : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 43 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered December 10, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 08, 2014 December 10, 2013 orders that granted the petition to terminate her * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J. A14008/14 Youth Services ( adoption.1 We affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history of this case have been succinctly set forth in the trial court opinion. Therefore, we have no need to state them herein. Mother raises the following issues for our review: I. Did the trial court err in determining [the Agency] presented clear and convincing under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), § 2511(a)(5) and § 2511(a)(8)? II. Did the trial court err in determining there was parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) was in the best interest of the child? III. Did the trial court err in determining [the Agency] presented clear and convincing ev to adoption? We review appeals from the involuntary termination of parental rights according to the following standard: [A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when co determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported 1 The two appeals were consolidated sua sponte by order of this court entered on January 28, 2014. -2- J. A14008/14 by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. . . . [T]here are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the record and lt of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-827 (Pa. 2012) (internal citations omitted). On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006). In order to conclude that the trial court abused its as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial -3- J. A14008/14 record. The trial court, not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witness and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm, Id. at 822 823 (internal citations omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determination that there is no merit to the issues raised on appeal. The trial contentions. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of that opinion. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/8/2014 -4- Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM Circulated 06/26/2014 04:14 PM
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.
