Child’s best interests; In re Rippy; Failure to consider guardianship as an alternative; In re Lombard; Effect of a determination there are statutory grounds to support termination; In re Moss

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, or otherwise err as to the possibility of a guardianship during the proceedings, the court affirmed the termination order. The record showed “the trial court considered guardianship, and DHHS pursued the guardianship alternative for a significant amount of time during these proceedings.” The DHHS investigated the child’s “first foster family regarding guardianship, but they ultimately declined.” There was also testimony that it looked on a quarterly basis for relatives “who would be willing to take guardianship, but those searches did not reveal any placements for” the child. In addition, the record indicated that respondent “never provided any potential relatives who could take guardianship of” the child when DHHS was pursuing the guardianship possibility. Next, she contended “the trial court failed to consider her constitutional right to raise her child because guardianship was a less-restrictive alternative.” But the court noted “that once a parent has been determined unfit, i.e., there are statutory grounds to support termination, ‘the child’s interest in a normal family home is superior to any interest the parent has.’ Therefore, the trial court had no obligation to place predominant weight on [the] mother’s constitutional right to parent because, when making the best-interest determination, it is the child’s interest that must prevail.” As to the trial court’s best-interest analysis, the court held that, given the facts of the case, it “did not clearly err by determining that it was in” the child’s best interests to terminate the mother’s rights because she had no bond with the child, she “did not substantially comply with her case service plan for the majority of this two-year proceeding, and [she] had a substantial substance-abuse history that she refused to address.” In addition, the child “was doing well in the care of a prospective adoptive family.”