Children’s best interests; In re Atchley; Effect of relative placement; In re Mota

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. It previously remanded with instructions for the trial court to specifically consider the children’s relative placement in determining whether termination was in their best interests. On remand, the trial court considered their “ages, noting that CM neither wished to reunify with respondent nor maintained a substantial bond with her, and that CM had been significantly traumatized both by the abuse and by respondent’s inadequate response to her disclosure. [It] further found that CM was thriving in her relative foster placement.” While acknowledging there was “some bond between respondent and JT, it attributed this to JT’s youth and limited awareness of the abuse. The trial court further evaluated the children’s weak bond with respondent, their positive relationship with the foster family, and the prospect of adoption. [It] found respondent incapable of providing a stable and protective home for the children due to her persistent denial of culpability and failure to appreciate the gravity of the harm” they suffered. It “also considered the documented history of domestic violence and respondent’s broader history. Ultimately, [it] concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests notwithstanding their” relative placement. The court noted that respondent did not address the trial court’s findings as to “the impact of her actions and omissions on the children’s welfare, which [it] determined were not outweighed by the relative placement. [Her] appellate briefing improperly centers [on] her own interests, whereas the appropriate focus at the best-interests stage is on the children.” There was substantial record evidence that she “was aware of her live-in boyfriend’s abuse of the children and failed to take protective action. The record further establishes that [she] instructed CM to mislead authorities in order to shield her boyfriend, indicating a prioritization of her relationship over” her children’s welfare. She did not offer any “persuasive rationale as to why this evidence is outweighed by the children’s placement with relatives.” Affirmed.