Termination under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) (desertion) & (h) (parental imprisonment depriving the child of a normal home for more than two years); Child’s best interests; Relative placement

The court affirmed the trial court’s findings regarding the statutory grounds for termination but vacated its best-interests analysis and remanded for further consideration of the child’s (GAB) best interests in light of the relative placement. Respondent-father first argued that the trial court erred in finding statutory grounds under §§ (b) and (h). However, the trial court terminated his parental rights under §§ (a)(ii) and (h), not (b). Thus, his argument as to § (b) was unavailing. “Moreover, even if the trial court had erred in finding statutory grounds for termination under [§ (h)], that error would not provide a basis for reversal. A trial court only needs one statutory ground to support termination of parental rights under” § (3). The trial court found statutory grounds to terminate his parental rights under §§ (a)(ii) and (h), and he did not challenge the findings as to § (a)(ii) on appeal. “To the extent that the trial court clearly erred by finding statutory grounds to terminate under [§ (h)], that error was harmless because [he] does not dispute that termination was appropriate under [§ (a)(ii)].” Respondent next contended “that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination was in the child’s best interests.” The court noted that in “determining that termination was in GAB’s best interests, the trial court considered that respondent-father had been incarcerated for all but eight or nine months of the child’s life and did not maintain contact with the child during his incarceration.” The trial court further noted that respondent “had little, if any, relationship with GAB and never provided support for him. However, the trial court did not explicitly address GAB’s placement with respondent-mother’s relatives when considering whether termination was in his best interests. As a result, the factual record is ‘inadequate to make a best-interest determination and requires reversal.’”