Children’s best interests; Relative placement

Concluding that the record supported the trial court’s finding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s (EAD and JDD) best interests, the court affirmed. “EAD was hospitalized for poor weight gain, and was under the first percentile for weight. At the hospital, doctors discovered that EAD had a liver laceration from nonaccidental trauma and scratches on both sides of her face that did not match respondent’s explanations. To rectify these conditions, the trial court ordered respondent to comply with her service plan.” She, however, “failed to comply with or benefit from her service plan. She did not follow up on the recommendations from her psychological evaluation, failed to complete several court-ordered services, and sporadically attended parenting time visits. Although there was evidence of a bond between respondent and her children, the children more often sought comfort from their caregivers—their grandmother and great-grandmother— instead of respondent during parenting visits. The trial court acknowledged this, stating that the relationship between the children and their caregivers more closely resembled a parental bond.” This makes sense, given that they “had been in the care of their grandmother and great grandmother almost their entire lives. [They] were doing well in their great-grandmother’s care, and EAD’s failure-to-thrive condition had improved. Further, the children’s great grandmother expressed a willingness to adopt them.” These facts demonstrated “that termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent contends that the trial court failed to adequately consider that the relative placement weighed against termination. But the trial court explicitly stated that the children’s placement weighed against termination. Regardless, it found that this was nonetheless outweighed by respondent’s failure to rectify the conditions that led to adjudication, as demonstrated by her failure to comply with her service plan and irregular visits with the children.” Respondent also argued “that the trial court did not consider if guardianship was a viable option.” But the record belied this assertion. “The trial court expressly determined that guardianship was not in the children’s best interests, stating that ‘guardianship would do nothing but leave these children in the exact same position we have now.’”