Children’s best interests; Guardianships; Relative placement

Concluding that the trial court did not err by holding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. Although she “had a bond with the children, she was no closer to having them returned to her care at the end of the proceeding than she was at the beginning of the proceeding. The children had been in care for two years and five months at the time of the best-interests hearing, and respondent’s parenting time had not progressed to unsupervised. In fact, she had not visited any of [them] for eight months and failed to attend the best-interests hearing.” Respondent contended “a guardianship, rather than termination, would have been in the children’s best interests.” The court noted that, initially, “AA’s grandmother had guardianship of AA, and ARC’s grandfather had a power of attorney for ARC, but both eventually lapsed. Although the grandparents preferred guardianships early in the proceeding and hoped that respondent would at some point be able to care for the children, at the time of the best-interests hearing, both grandparents preferred to adopt the children. The trial court recognized at the best-interests hearing that the grandparents no longer preferred guardianships instead of termination.” It considered “guardianships but concluded that they would not be in the children’s best interests[.]” Thus the record demonstrated “that the trial court considered guardianships and determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests so that the grandparents caring for the children could adopt them.” Respondent failed to establish that the trial court’s determination was erroneous.