Child’s best interests; Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Scope of remand; The law-of-the-case doctrine

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err on remand in finding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed. It previously remanded for “the trial court to readdress the best interests of the child, specifically the child’s placement with a relative.” The trial court determined that termination “was in the child’s best interests, despite the child’s placement with his mother.” It weighed the evidence, including a “caseworker’s testimony and the original clinical report. The trial court recognized that the child may be harmed by ‘forced’ parenting time with respondent, who the trial court found to have sexually abused the child’s half-sibling by clear and convincing evidence. Although the allegations did not claim that the child in this case was sexually abused,” the court noted that under the doctrine of anticipatory neglect, “‘how a parent treats one child is certainly probative of how that parent may treat other children.’” The court concluded the “trial court did not err when it weighed the factors and considered the child, the placement with his mother, and the possible harm of a relationship with respondent based on the clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s sexual abuse.” Respondent also argued that there was insufficient evidence of statutory grounds to terminate his rights. But this issue was not properly before the court due to “the scope of the remand and the law-of-the case doctrine.” In the prior appeal, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling as to statutory grounds and remanded “only for reconsideration of best interests.”