parties during the relevant hearing in Pennsylvania

2026Unlike orphans’ courts, “appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the … judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents.” In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).

2025Moreover, as a reviewing Court, we are “not equipped to make the fact- specific determinations on a cold record, [unlike] trial judges [who] observ[e] the parties during the relevant hearing[s] and often presid[e] over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

2025See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (noting that “there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in [dependency and termination of parental rights] cases” and acknowledging 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” (citations omitted)); see also In re S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108 , 1124 (Pa. 2021) (emphasizing t

2025Specifically, Mother argues that “because she took the necessary steps to ensure the well-being of [Child], the elements of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) have not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 19. ____________________________________________ Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (noting that “there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in [dependency and termination of parental rights] cases” and acknowledging that “unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where

2016See Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his or her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the Statement of Questions Involved in his or her brief on appeal).

2016See Krebs v. United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his or her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the Statement of Questions Involved in his or her brief on appeal). -4- J-S59030-16 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.

2020R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 .

2020R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 .

2025Therefore, 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 the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. -9- Interest of K.T., 324 A.3d 49, 56 (Pa. Super. 2024) (brackets omitted) (quoting In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012)); s

2025Therefore, 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 the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. -9- Interest of K.T., 324 A.3d 49, 56 (Pa. Super. 2024) (brackets omitted) (quoting In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012)); s

2023See Int. of D.N.G., 230 A.3d at 363 n.2. -5- courts are not equipped to make fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents.

2018See also In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 465-66 (Pa. Super. 2017). -5- J-S29003-18 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.

2017In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). -6- J-S06001-17 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained the reason for applying an abuse of discretion to termination decisions: [U]nlike 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.