Child’s best-interests; Relative placement

The court held that the record reflected “the trial court clearly recognized that [the child] DDR was placed with his mother but that termination was nonetheless in DDR’s best interests.” Thus, it affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. “DDR was hospitalized for severe burns when he was approximately seven months old, while in respondent’s care and the mother was at work.” He subsequently pled guilty to second-degree child abuse and was imprisoned. DDR was placed with his mother. “The trial court explicitly recognized DDR’s placement with his mother multiple times during its best-interests determination. It reasoned that DDR’s need for permanency, stability, and finality would be better served with his mother, and that, if it ‘were to deny [the termination petition], then custody could be sought, and the child would have to see the perpetrator of these acts on a regular basis, especially, as a child.’”