Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Emotional harm; Child’s best interests; Consideration of the length of the parent’s incarceration; In re Jenks; Effect of relative placement; In re Atchley

Holding that termination was supported under § (j) and was in the child’s (ZA) best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. The case arose after CPS received complaints “alleging that ZA witnessed respondent ‘stab’ nonrespondent-mother and LK,” ZA’s half-sibling. The court concluded that admissible evidence showed that he attacked them “while ZA was present. Both mother and LK suffered multiple stab wounds that required extended medical care. Respondent’s convictions, and the details of the underlying violent conduct, were previously introduced through LK’s forensic interview testimony included with the petition,” three documents the trial court admitted at the hearing, and the trial “court taking judicial notice of respondent’s criminal file. The report outlining the results of ZA’s trauma assessment stated that ZA exhibited numerous negative psychological effects following the stabbings that impacted ‘many areas of her functioning.’” These included frequent nightmares. “The trial court noted that ZA could not be returned to respondent regardless because he was sentenced to ‘a minimum of 23.75 years.’ But it stated further that, ‘if for some reason it was a possibility,’ respondent’s” AWIM convictions for the attack “established clear and convincing evidence that ZA would be harmed if returned to his care under” § (j). The court noted that harm for purposes of this statutory ground encompasses emotional as well as physical harm. As to ZA’s best interests, the trial court found that respondent “acted ‘contradictory to his ability to appropriately parent’ by attacking ZA’s mother and LK with a knife.” It also found that whatever parent-child bond there might have been was shattered. Further, his “lack of history caring for ZA suggested that, even if he were to be released during ZA’s childhood, he failed to show that he had the ability to care for” her. While ZA’s placement with her mother weighed against termination, it was not dispositive. The “trial court appropriately considered the length of time that respondent would be incarcerated and assigned more weight to that fact.”