Child’s best interests

Concluding that the trial court’s best-interest determination was not clearly erroneous, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights to the child, NLB, the youngest of nine. Respondent argued the record supported that her “situation was improving by the best-interest hearings, and the [trial] court should have ruled that NLB was similarly situated to her older siblings.” The court noted that respondent “had a long history of cocaine abuse and continued to abuse the drug up until the time of the termination hearings. Meanwhile, NLB has been in foster care for most of her life, starting when she was a young infant. While there was evidence to support that respondent-mother had a bond with NLB, the bond appeared stronger on respondent-mother’s end than NLB’s end. In fact, visitations had not occurred for a significant duration, and NLB was nervous to be around respondent-mother when visits first resumed in [10/24]. It took a while for her to warm back up to” respondent. The court concluded that the “trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination was in NLB’s best interests considering NLB’s strong bond with her foster family; NLB’s need for permanency, stability, and finality; [her] lack of ability to provide a home for NLB; and the advantages of the foster home over” her home.