Child’s best interests

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights to the child, JA, was in the child’s best interests. “When making the determination as to JA’s best interests, the trial court considered several of the relevant factors. The trial court determined that there was very little bond, if any, between JA and respondent because JA was removed to foster care when he was only seven months old. The trial court considered that JA was doing well in foster care and his condition had improved significantly after being removed from respondent’s care.” It also “considered that JA’s foster family was approved as an adoptive family.” Further, it “emphasized respondent’s history as a perpetrator of domestic violence, and generally violent history.” Although he “participated in a parenting class and expressed the desire to be a good father, the trial court did not err by determining that the preponderance of the evidence nonetheless demonstrated that termination of [his] parental rights was in JA’s best interests.” Also, a preponderance of the evidence supported “the trial court’s determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights is in JA’s best interests. Respondent admitted his criminal history of violent offenses, and did not dispute the events that led to his arrest and conviction of domestic violence against JA’s mother. Respondent also did not contest the deplorable condition of the home, that the home had been condemned, nor the neglected condition in which JA was found. There also was evidence that respondent sexually assaulted JA’s half-sister[, SV].” The court concluded “that the trial court did not err by considering SV’s statements among the other factors considered by the trial court when determining JA’s best interests, nor did the trial court clearly err by determining that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in JA’s best interests.” Affirmed.