Child’s best interests; Lawyer guardian ad litem (LGAL)

The court held that the “trial court gave all of the evidence that was presented its proper weight in determining that it was in [child-L’s] best interests to terminate” respondent-father’s parental rights. He argued that the trial court clearly erred when it held “that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of [L] because it did not fully consider the possibility that his conviction CSC I of” L’s sister could be overturned. The court disagreed. He argued “that the trial court erred by not giving enough weight to the possibility of his conviction being overturned or that he may be granted a new trial after going through the criminal appeals process.” If that occurred, respondent contended, “he would have enough time to complete a permanence plan for [L] and would be able to take care of her.” L’s LGAL argued that it was in L’s “best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights because [he] sexually abused her sister and was sentenced to prison until at least 2039; [he] physically abused [L]; [L] did not want to have any contact with respondent; [L] was in a stable foster home with a foster parent who could adopt her; and [L’s] need for stability and permanence outweighed any speculative criminal appeal.” The court agreed with the LGAL’s arguments. “The trial court heard testimony that respondent sexually abused [L’s] sister and was convicted of” CSC I. He was sentenced to 17 to 40 years. L “would reach the age of majority before his release.” The trial “court heard testimony that respondent physically abused [L], that [L] did not want contact with respondent, that [L] wanted to be adopted by her foster parent, that [L] was in a stable home where she had formed [a good] relationship with her foster parent, and she was in the same home as her sister. Respondent was sentenced to prison until at least 2039, and was in no position to take care of [L], even if she wanted to have any contact with him. The possibility of respondent successfully appealing his conviction is far too speculative to overcome the vast amount of evidence that establishes that it is in [L’s] best interests for his parental rights to be terminated. The focus of a best-interests hearing is the child, not the parent.” Affirmed.