§ 19b(3)(j); Reasonable reunification efforts; Children’s best interests; Consideration of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts

While the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was warranted under § (j) and that reasonable reunification efforts were made, it vacated the best-interests determination due to the failure to consider the child’s relative placement. As to reasonable reunification efforts, “respondent-father did not even complete the psychological evaluation or parenting classes” to which he had agreed. At the disposition hearing, the DHHS confirmed that he had “‘not participated in any services leading up to this.’ Following the disposition hearing, the trial court ordered the DHHS to provide services. However, after the permanency planning hearing 43 days later, [it] then ordered that no more services be offered.” The court concluded that he did not “establish that the trial court clearly erred in finding that reasonable reunification efforts” were made. As to § (j), the trial court recognized respondent’s “history of ‘criminal behavior’ and the ‘uncertainty’ that it created in [the child’s] life.” It noted that, while respondent “clearly wanted the best for his child, considering his track record, there was no guarantee that [he] would ever comport his ‘behavior in a manner that’” allowed the child “‘to feel stable and steady.’ The trial court further noted that [his] instability posed a substantial likelihood of harm to” the child. It found that in light of respondent’s “‘convictions over the course of decades’ and recent conviction of felony surveilling an unclothed person, [the child] faced a reasonable likelihood of harm if returned to [his] care.” The court concluded that the record supported the trial court’s findings. But the trial court’s best-interest analysis lacked “any consideration as to relative placement. Two DHHS foster-care workers testified that [the child] was placed with the paternal aunt.” The trial court failed to acknowledge this placement in “making its best interest findings, much less acknowledge that this placement weighed against termination.” By itself, this error required “vacation of the best-interest determination.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court retained jurisdiction.