Child’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Mason; Permanency; Stability; Adoption; Parent’s disappearance; Substance abuse

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. After the child’s mother died, respondent was identified as the putative father and later established legal paternity, but the DHHS alleged that he had been using heroin with the mother in the child’s presence when she overdosed and died. Respondent initially made progress on his service plan and had a “very strong bond” with the child, but later disappeared, stopped communicating with the foster-care worker, and could not be located despite petitioner’s efforts. On appeal, the court held that the trial court properly considered the child’s placement with relatives because “a child’s placement with relatives weighs against termination,” but that factor was “not dispositive.” The court explained that the trial court “considered JS’s placement with relatives and properly weighed that factor against termination,” while also recognizing that the relatives were “open to adoption” and had strong bonds with the child, giving her “permanency, stability, and finality.” The court next rejected respondent’s claim that the trial court rushed to terminate his rights because he had been missing since June 2024, the trial court gave him “roughly six months” to reappear before ordering a permanent-custody petition, and by the best-interest ruling he had been missing “for over a year.” Given respondent’s disappearance, substance-abuse concerns, and the child’s stability in a relative placement willing to adopt, the court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred. Affirmed.