Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii), (i), (j), & (k)(iii); Child’s best interests

Holding that §§ (b)(ii), (i), (j), and (k)(iii) existed and termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s (PES) best interests, the court affirmed. The evidence established that he “had a history of physically and emotionally abusing PES’s siblings and half-siblings, that he lost parental rights to three other children because of that conduct, and that he was criminally convicted of child abuse. Accordingly, the trial court reasonably concluded that respondent had not rectified the conditions that led to the prior termination of his parental rights and that PES would be harmed if returned to respondent’s home and care.” Despite this conclusion, he argued “that the trial court should have more closely scrutinized the prior termination of his parental rights.” However, he “provided no authority for the proposition that one trial court is required to review the efficacy of another trial court’s order.” The court held that respondent’s “arguments related to the trial court’s consideration of his prior termination of parental rights and criminal convictions are legally and factually without merit.” Respondent also made “a cursory argument that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification.” However, because his “parental rights to PES’s siblings had been involuntarily terminated, and there was no evidence that he had rectified the conditions that led to this prior termination of his parental rights, reasonable efforts were not required.” Finally, he argued “that there was no evidence that he would harm PES or that he was unfit to parent this child. Respondent completely ignores the evidence that he physically and emotionally abused PES’s siblings and half-siblings, that he had his rights to those children terminated, and that he was convicted of second-degree child abuse arising from his abuse of the children.” This evidence supported “the trial court’s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that PES would be at risk of similar harm in respondent’s care, and that respondent was unfit to parent any child.”