Children’s best interests; Guardianship

Holding that the trial court did not err by finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children, the court affirmed. The preponderance of the evidence supported “the trial court’s determination that the children’s [KL and KD] need for stability and permanence outweighed the fact of relative placement. The evidence supported the determination that adoption best served [their] need for stability and permanence. Respondent had abandoned [them], failing to have contact with the children or support them financially, and assumed no responsibility for the children’s care or wellbeing, although he had the means to do so. The children had lived for much of their lives with their aunt, the aunt provided the children with stability and permanence, the aunt was eager to adopt the children, and the children were eager to be adopted by the aunt. Because the preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s best interest determination, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.” Respondent also argued “that the trial court should have considered a guardianship for the children rather than terminating his parental rights.” The court found that in “this case, no such demonstration in support of guardianship was made. The trial court considered and rejected the possibility that the children be placed in a guardianship with their aunt, concluding that a guardianship was not the in the children’s best interests. The trial court reasoned that the children had spent a considerable amount of time in the care of their aunt, who provided the children with stability and permanence. The aunt and the children wanted adoption, and neither the aunt nor the children wanted a guardianship. Respondent had virtually no contact with the children for more than a year before the termination of his parental rights and made no effort to provide for [them] even after they were removed from the home of their mother, though respondent had the financial ability to do so.” The court found “no error in the trial court’s rejection of a guardianship in this case.”