Child’s best interests; Parental bond; The doctrine of anticipatory neglect

Concluding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s (KDB) best interests, the court affirmed. The record did not support her claim that there was a bond between them. The evidence showed “that KDB had a parental bond with his caregiver, not respondent.” The court found that her “parenting ability was also concerning.” Police officers found meth “paraphernalia in areas of the home that KDB could access while in respondent’s care.” She continued to use meth “even though she became angry, belligerent, and illogical when she was high on [meth]. This was especially concerning in light of [her] history of hitting” another one of her children “after she became aggressive from drinking alcohol. Respondent did not attend parenting classes to improve her parenting skills when she was in termination proceedings regarding” another child. The court found that her treatment of those children was “indicative of how she may treat KDB, especially when she failed to take steps to improve her parenting ability by completing parenting classes during her previous termination proceedings. This weighs in favor of termination. Stability and permanency would be beneficial for KDB, who is now four years old.” Further, the court noted that “KDB’s caregiver has expressed a willingness to adopt him, which favors termination.” Respondent asserted “that she attended supervised visits with KDB weekly, which weighs against termination. A child’s placement with a relative also weighs against termination, and the trial court gave KDB’s placement with fictive kin this weight.” But it concluded that “even though the child is with fictive kin, or if the child were with relatives, it is still in his best interest to terminate the mother’s rights.” It found that her “untreated mental health issues, lack of accountability, and unstable housing situation outweighed KDB’s placement with fictive kin. The [trial] court stated that KDB needed ‘permanence and stability’ and was concerned that if something happened to the caregiver, KDB could end up with ‘an inappropriate and dangerous parent if [respondent’s] rights are not terminated.’ [It] weighed all the evidence available to it, and determined that it was in KDB’s best interests to terminate respondent’s rights.” Finally, the record included her “past conduct, and it was not erroneous for the [trial] court to consider this when” deciding if termination was in KDB’s best interests.