Children’s best interests; Consideration of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts; Guardian ad litem (GAL)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. She did not challenge the trial court’s finding of a statutory ground for termination on appeal. Rather, she argued that the trial court erred in “failing to explicitly address their relative placement with fictive kin weighed against termination.” The court noted that “the issue of relative placement was repeatedly discussed before the” trial court. It concluded the record showed “that, after the initiation of termination proceedings, the trial court appropriately considered relative placement as a factor when examining best interests.” The trial court did consider “that a fictive kin placement was ‘a factor’ to consider, the issue was raised by the GAL, and the trial court determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests ‘not[]withstanding’ the relative placement.” The court noted that “respondent did not voluntarily place the children with” the individual in question, “and their interactions could result in emotional and stressful situations for the children, who required ‘permanence, safety and stability.’” Under the circumstances, the court found no clear error.