Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts; Principle that the focus of the best-interest determination is on the child, not the parent; In re Schadler; Remedy

Concluding that, in determining whether termination was in the child’s (JJR) best interests, the trial court improperly focused on respondent-father, rather than JJR, the court held that “the trial court committed clear error in its best-interest analysis.” JJR was removed from the father’s “care after skeletal exams revealed ‘multiple rib fractures in multiple healing stages as well as a left clavicle fracture’ and a classical metaphyseal lesion in his femur. JJR’s doctors determined that his injuries were the result of ‘nonaccidental trauma[.]’” The father asserted that the injuries were accidental and “refused to accept responsibility for his actions regarding the events that caused his son to be removed and placed in care.” In ruling that terminating the father’s rights was not in JJR’s best interests, “the trial court considered the fact that JJR was placed with respondent-mother, finding that he was doing well in her care, so there would be no need for adoption. But while [it] expressed concern about respondent-father’s ‘spotty’ participation in supervised parenting time, it found termination was not in JJR’s best interests because it was ‘persuaded that there’s enough here that [respondent] wants to be a positive influence in his, his son’s life[.]’” But the court noted that the “focus of the best-interest determination is on the child, not on the parent.” As to the appropriate remedy for the clear error, while the DHHS demanded reversal of the trial court’s best-interests decision, “entry of such an order does not dictate whether the trial court should be afforded the opportunity to again conduct a best-interest analysis.” The court concluded “that the trial court’s flawed analytical approach led to the flawed outcome” it identified, and that the most appropriate remedy was to vacate the trial court’s decision as to JJR’s best interests and remand for further consideration of whether terminating the father’s parental rights is in JJR’s best interests. In conducting this analysis, it “should go through each of the best-interest factors, making findings from JJR’s perspective as to whether each factor weighs against or in favor of” terminating the father’s rights. Reversed and remanded.