Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (j); Best interests of the children

Holding that the trial court properly terminated respondent-father’s parental rights to the children, TLH and TJH, and that it was in their best interests, the court affirmed. Respondent argued that the trial court erred by terminating his parental rights based on his incarceration under § (h). But “the trial court made no such finding.” It terminated his rights pursuant to §§ (b)(i) and (j); it did not cite § (h) or “merely rely on his incarceration as a ground for termination. To the extent the trial court referenced the fact” he was incarcerated, this was made in the context of its discussion of his “history of being convicted and accused of committing sexual offenses against minor children.” The trial court discussed this history to show that his “treatment of his own daughter, TLH, was part of an established pattern of engaging in sexually abusive conduct toward minors, which the trial court found to be an indication that TLH was reasonably likely to suffer from sexual abuse in the future if respondent’s parental rights were not terminated.” He did “not challenge the propriety of the trial court’s findings in this regard on appeal but instead focuses solely on claiming that the court’s statutory grounds finding was based on his incarceration” and § (h). However, there was no support in the record for this contention, and he did not advance any argument that the trial court’s reliance on §§ (b)(i) or (j) was erroneous. Under the circumstances, he abandoned any appellate challenge to the trial court’s statutory grounds findings and he failed to show any error as to its statutory grounds determination.