Children’s best interests; Relative placement; Custody

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s (KIO and NRO) best interests, the court affirmed. He pled no contest to CSC II and was sentenced to 300 days in jail and 5 years’ probation. He claimed that alternative custody arrangements other than the mother were available. There was “no dispute that the children were in a relative placement with their mother. The trial court expressly acknowledged this placement and stated that it weighed against termination. Accordingly, the trial court satisfied its obligation to consider the relative-placement factor.” Father further asserted “that the trial court should have considered an alternative custody arrangement, such as granting sole legal and physical custody to the children’s mother while allowing father limited parenting time with KIO.” The record reflected “that the trial court found that father posed an ongoing risk of harm to both children, including the risk of future sexually abusive behavior. The court emphasized the significant emotional harm already suffered by KIO and NRO and the potential for additional harm if father’s parental rights were not terminated. Under these circumstances, the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that termination, rather than an alternative custody arrangement, best served the children’s interests.” Father also argued “that termination was contrary to KIO’s best interests because KIO expressed a desire to maintain a relationship with [him]. The trial court carefully considered KIO’s preference, noting his age and emotional state, but concluded that he lacked the maturity to fully appreciate the long-term implications of continued contact.” The trial “court expressed concern that KIO might fail to report unsafe conditions in the future and that maintaining the relationship with father could strain KIO’s relationships with NRO and their mother.” Thus, the record demonstrated “that the trial court meaningfully considered KIO’s wishes and reasonably determined that they were outweighed by the risk of harm.” Finally, father contended “that he demonstrated strong parenting abilities and that he posed a low risk of reoffending, particularly in light of his claimed sobriety.” However, the trial court found his “parenting ability to be compromised by alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, and inappropriate sleeping arrangements. [It] emphasized that father failed to participate in treatment or services recommended to him following a psychological evaluation and largely minimized his potential risk of reoffending. Although the trial court acknowledged father’s financial support of the children as a factor weighing against termination, it reasonably concluded that this consideration was outweighed by the remaining factors.”