Child’s best interests; Bond with the child

Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err by holding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in child-BMO’s best interests, the court affirmed. She argued that “she demonstrated parenting ability and had a strong bond with BMO.” The record belied “the notion that respondent and BMO consistently had a strong and loving bond that would weigh against termination.” The DHHS substantiated allegations that she “physically abused BMO in 2022 by punching her twice, causing bruises on her head and body. After these incidents, BMO did not feel safe with respondent. BMO refused many parenting times in 2023 and ended others early. At the time of the ultimate termination hearing, BMO loved respondent, but wanted termination because she was ‘ready to be out of foster care and to move on with her life.’” Respondent further argued “that termination would break BMO’s bond with her sisters.” The older sister “wanted to adopt BMO and already cared for her siblings. Indeed, according to the record currently available to us, the most recent report from Oakland Family Services, dated January 7, 2025, indicates that adoption preparations for BMO were ongoing, and ‘[i]t is the goal of the agency to file the adoption petition by March 2025.’ In addition to the lack of a consistent bond, respondent’s inconsistent parenting time history also weighed in favor of termination of her parental rights.” Finally, the court found that “the trial court properly relied on BMO’s need for permanency and stability after her long foster-care placement exceeding seven years.” It concluded that given “BMO’s extended foster-care placement and respondent’s lack of compliance, the trial court did not err by failing to allow respondent additional time to comply before terminating her parental rights.”