Children’s best interests; In re White; Relative placement; In re Mason; Effect of a child having already been placed in nonrelative foster care; In re DMAN

The court held that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests because the record showed inconsistent and infrequent visitation, and limited commitment to parenting. It also held that the trial court was not required to consider relative placement because this child was already placed in nonrelative foster care. The child was removed at birth after testing positive for marijuana. Respondent’s two older children were already in the DHHS’s care because of prior neglect concerns, including leaving them with the maternal grandmother for two months and another child testing positive for marijuana at birth. On appeal, respondent challenged the trial court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interests. The court noted that once statutory grounds are established, best interests are decided by a preponderance of the evidence, and the inquiry should focus on “the child, rather than” the mother. The relevant factors to be considered include “the child’s bond to respondent[], respondent[‘s] parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over” respondent’s home, as well as respondent’s “compliance with the case service plan” and “visitation history[.]” It emphasized that she completed only 31 of 158 possible supervised visits and only 8 of 50 ordered drug screens, which supported the trial court’s concern about her “lack of commitment to parenting the child.” The court also rejected her relative-placement argument, explaining that “the trial court was not required to consider relative placement” because “the child in this case was placed in nonrelative foster care[.]” Affirmed.