Child’s best interests

Concluding that the trial court did not err by finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s (GAB) best interests, the court affirmed. He argued that “he expressed willingness to participate in services while incarcerated and believed that he could rebuild a relationship with GAB after being released from incarceration.” The court found that a “preponderance of the evidence in the records supports that GAB did not know [his] father, identified with his current placement as his family, and looked to them for love, affection, and guidance.” It found that the “trial court properly considered the duration of GAB’s placement with relatives and found that he could not be placed with [the father] within the foreseeable future, as [he] will remain incarcerated until at least” 6/27. The record further supported the finding that the father “failed to seek custody or establish paternity until GAB was five years old, despite acknowledging GAB as his son as early as 2021. Two DHHS caseworkers testified that they made several attempts over the years to contact [the father] during his incarceration, and [he] did not avail himself of court-appointed counsel despite assistance offered. Although ‘[i]ncarceration alone is not a sufficient reason for termination of parental rights,’” the father’s “earliest release date is mid-2027, when GAB will be eight years old.” The court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by finding that termination of [the father’s] parental rights was in GAB’s best interests.”