Termination of parental rights; Child’s best interests; Effect of relative placement; In re Mason; Failure to consider a guardianship as an alternative

The court held that the trial court on remand did not clearly err in finding the preponderance of the evidence showed that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in her child’s (ES) best interests. Respondent also failed to show plain error as to the trial court’s failure to consider a guardianship as a termination alternative. Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. It “previously affirmed the trial court’s reasonable-efforts finding but vacated the termination order and remanded for further proceedings because the trial court failed to consider ES’s placement with a relative when deciding whether termination was in ES’s best interests. On remand, the trial court complied with” the remand order. It “found that, despite ES’s placement with a relative, a preponderance of the evidence proved that termination was in ES’s best interests because respondent had not adequately participated in parenting classes, domestic-violence classes, counseling services, or a psychological evaluation. [It] also relied on the facts that respondent had not obtained adequate housing, she had very limited interaction with ES since removal, and she did not make any attempt to support ES after” 6/24. The court concluded the record showed she “failed to comply with her case service plan. Although she did participate in parenting time and classes initially, she did not take advantage of all the time with ES available to her. Respondent eventually missed so many parenting-time appointments that she was discharged from the program.” The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that “nonparticipation in services, particularly parenting time, weighed in favor of termination.” The same was true as to its “finding that past and present concerns about domestic violence weighed in favor of termination.” The case service plan included services intended to address “concerns about respondent’s history as both a victim and perpetrator of domestic violence. [She] did not participate in domestic-violence services until at least” 10/24. Further, “the trial court explicitly considered” the relative placement as weighing against termination. But it also found respondent had not provided ES “any emotional, mental, or physical support” while the “relative placement provided the care, love, and permanence that ES required.” The court did “not have a definite and firm conviction” the trial court made a mistake.