Child’s best interests; Guardianship; Bond with the parent

Holding that the trial court did not err in determining termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in child-JEB’s best interests, the court affirmed. It found that “the trial court properly considered alternatives to termination and found that a guardianship would not be in JEB’s best interests.” The court concluded that “the record indicated that, although father loved JEB, it was unclear if JEB was bonded to father. Even if they were bonded, the trial court observed that the bond was not healthy for JEB.” It was “clear that any bond JEB maintained with father was not healthy for JEB, who needed permanency and stability that father could not provide.” The court also held that as “further found by the trial court, father did not provide a stable living situation for his current children and would be unable to provide stability and permanency for JEB. Father lacked commitment to completing services and failed to provide proof that he had obtained suitable employment or housing. He smoked marijuana throughout the proceedings and refused to quit or submit to drug screenings, despite the recommendations of his substance abuse assessment. Father did not properly store his marijuana to keep it out of JEB’s reach. Because father failed to comply with or benefit from the services provided to him during the two-year proceeding, he lacked the ability to provide proper care to JEB. Meanwhile, JEB was thriving in his foster care placement and was bonded with his foster parents. The foster parents were interested in adopting JEB, who had been in their care since” 9/23.