Ineffective assistance of counsel in a child-protective proceeding; In re Martin; Child’s best interests; In re White

Rejecting respondent-father’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and holding that the trial court did not err in finding that termination was in the child’s (KS) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondent contended his “trial counsel failed to request that he be permitted to visit with KS.” But the record showed “that trial counsel requested that respondent[] be permitted to communicate with KS despite being incarcerated.” Thus, respondent failed to show “that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient or prejudiced him.” The court also determined that even “if trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask about relative placements before the best-interest hearing,” respondent did not show “prejudice because the DHHS communicated with the relatives that [he] identified in 2024, years after KS was first removed, and did not find any suitable placements.” The DHHS complied with the requirement that it investigate relative placements, and respondent did not show “how questions from trial counsel about the issue would have altered the trial court’s termination findings.” Further, even assuming that trial counsel’s failure to question witnesses about the provision of services “was deficient performance, there is no basis to find that” it prejudiced respondent given that “the trial court’s termination decision did not depend on whether [he] engaged in services.” As to KS’s best interests, the record showed that he “did not know or ask about respondent[] and believed that he did not have a father, evidencing that there was no bond between” them. There was no evidence that respondent “tried to write letters or send gifts to KS, or even that [he] had any parenting skills.” The court also noted that the record showed he “had a history of sexually assaulting minors. [He] stipulated that there was clear-and-convincing evidence that there was a reasonable likelihood of KS being harmed if returned to” his care. KS had also “been in foster care for much of his life, and nothing in the record contradicts the trial court’s findings that KS needed permanence, stability, and finality.”