Whether termination was in the children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re White; Parent-agency agreement (PAA)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. He did not challenge its finding of statutory grounds on appeal. Rather, he asserted termination was not in his children’s best interests because the trial court failed to consider their bond with him, his parenting ability, “the permanency and stability created if he were to move into” the home of their paternal grandmother (C), where they were placed, or termination alternatives. But the record showed that “the referee conducted a thorough analysis” of the children’s best interests. As to their bond with respondent, while the referee acknowledged one of the children missed his father, it was also noted that one of the children was born while respondent was incarcerated and thus, had no bond with him. The referee found that respondent loved his children, but that “‘his actions have caused harm to them and has led to his incarceration, which has deteriorated the parent-child bond.’” As to his moving into C’s home, the court found that, if anything, this “would cause instability to the children’s lives based on respondent’s history. For example, respondent failed to screen for drugs after” 9/20, a condition of his PAA, “and never provided verification of his income. Respondent also has a lengthy history of criminal conduct, and a recent no-contest plea to second-degree child abuse involving a minor living in his home at the time. The referee noted that” the children were well cared for by C during the “proceedings and that she was willing to adopt them. The referee explicitly stated that this factor weighed against termination. But the referee ‘believe[d] that the children’s need for safety outweigh[ed] the fact that they [were] placed with a relative.’” As to termination alternatives, “the referee ruled in favor of termination over guardianship because the children are safe and comfortable in [C’s] home, and are bonded, but advised DHHS to extensively discuss the expectations and consequences of adoption with” C.