Child's best interests; Relative placement

Holding that the trial court did explore relative placement with respondent-mother’s father (L) and did not clearly err by finding that guardianship or relative placement with L was not in the child’s (CSJ) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondents stipulated to statutory grounds for termination under §§ (c)(i) and (ii), (g), and (j). The issue was “whether the trial court clearly erred by failing to adequately considering [L] for a relative placement of CSJ, and finding guardianship with [L] was not in CSJ’s best interests.” The court found that it did not clearly err. The record was “clear DHHS met its statutory duty to explore relative placement with [L], but determined that he was ineligible, in part due to his noncompliance. No statutory violation occurred.” Respondents contended that the trial court erred when it found that relative placement or guardianship with L was not in CSJ’s best interests. The court disagreed. CSJ was not placed with L “at the time of termination because [L] did not complete the required paperwork or follow up with DHHS regarding his availability, despite several attempts by DHHS to obtain this information.” The court held that because CSJ was not in relative placement with L “at the time of the termination, the trial court had no statutory obligation to consider” L for guardianship. “Moreover, the trial court explained its reasoning for declining relative placement, noting that its primary concerns with [L] were that he was not in CSJ’s life until recently and did not appear bonded with CSJ. The trial court also expressed concern with [L’s] ability to provide the care and stability CSJ required.” Thus, the trial court did not “err by finding that guardianship or relative placement with [L] was not in CSJ’s best interests.”