Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts; In re Gonzales/Martinez

Holding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that it was in the child’s (CD) best interests to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights, the court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in doing so. He primarily argued “that he had a genuine bond with CD and” thus, terminating his rights was not in her best interests. He also emphasized “that he had made progress in finding suitable housing and ‘was seeking employment.’” The trial court acknowledged the parent-child bond and that he “rectified the housing barrier.” But it found that he “failed to rectify other service-plan requirements, including barriers related to transportation, employment, substance abuse, and mental health. The trial court properly focused on CD during the best-interest determination. It noted that CD experienced trauma from the two removals from respondent’s care and found that CD had trauma-related mental-health needs.” In addition, it “found respondent’s parenting ability ‘very questionable’ considering that he physically disciplined CD twice after reunification and continued abusing substances. [It] also considered the length of time that CD had been in DHHS custody, noting that she had spent more time in care than she had with respondent.” The court further concluded that the trial court “did not make its best-interest determination based on financial status.” Based on the facts of the case, “the trial court could properly find that plasma donation and food stamps failed to provide the ‘permanency, stability, and finality’ that CD required.” The trial court also “did not make its best-interest determination based on” respondent’s alcoholism alone. His “substance abuse was the most significant barrier to reunification, but the record demonstrated that the trial court considered all the evidence and many factors in making its” determination. Affirmed.