J

- A06008

- 21

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.N.S.L.

APPEAL OF: H.B.L. : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1061 WDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered September 25, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 156 of 2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McCAFFERY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: APRIL 5, 2021 H.B.L. (Father) appeals from the order , dated September 1, 2020, and from the amendment to that order, dated September 3, 2020, that involuntarily terminated Father’s parental rights to N.N.S.L. (Child), born in August of 2014

. 1 The orders were entered on the trial court docket on September 25, 2020. 2 Following our review, we affirm. On appeal, Father’s brief provides the following question for our review:

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
1 The September 3, 2020 order simply amends the September 1, 2020 order that terminated the parental rights of Father and R.J.H. (Mother) by vacating the paragraph giving custody of Child to foster parents and awarding custody of Child to the Westmoreland C ounty Children’s Bureau (Agency).

2 As noted in footnote 1, Mother ’s parental rights were terminated at the same time that Father’s parental rights were terminated. Mother did not appeal that determination and is not a party to this appeal.J

- A06008

- 21

- 2

-

Whether the trial court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau met its burden[] under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)? Father’s brief at 4. We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the following standard:

When reviewing an appeal from a decr ee 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, t he 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, comprehensiv e 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: The 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.”
I d. (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) . IfJ

- A06008

- 21

- 3

-

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 Order of Termination authored by the Honorable Jim Silvis of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, dated September 1, 2020. 3 We conclude t hat Judge Silvis’s well

- reasoned decision properly disposes of the issue raised by Father. In particular, Judge
Silvis noted that , “while Father loves his Child, the Child does not have a healthy attachment to her Father, and therefore there is no benefic ial relationship that should be preserved at the expense of the security and stability offered by the pre

- adoptive parents.” Order of Termination, 9/1/2020, at 9 (¶ 32). The judge further found that when Child had not seen
Father for months , there were n o adverse consequences; rather, she “calls her foster parents ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad,’ and looks forward to the day when they can adopt her.” Id. Judge Silvis concluded that the termination of Father’s parental rights would not significantly impact Child and tha t the termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare. See In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013) (stating that in cases dealing with termination of parental

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 The o rd er issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(a) on October 20, 2020, explains that the trial court’s rationale for ordering the termination of Father’s parental rights is contained in the September 1, 2020 order.J

- A06008

- 21

- 4

-

rights, the law should be applied “with an eye to the best interests and the
needs and welfare of the particular children involved”). Thus, we conclude that Judge Silvis’s O rder of T ermination properly disposes of the issue Father raises in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Silvis’s Order of Termination in lieu of an opinion as our own and affirm the decision appealed
from on that basis.
Order of Termination affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/5/2021Circulated 03/17/2021 01:11 PM