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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 County 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 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 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:

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.” 

Id. (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 
J-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 that 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 beneficial 

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 no 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 that 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 order 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 Order of Termination 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: 4/5/2021
Circulated 03/17/2021 01:11 PM