Children’s best interests; Guardianship as alternative to termination; In re JMG; Retaining parent-child relationship; Individualized best-interest determinations; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts; Permanency & stability

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests despite their relative placement and his argument that a guardianship should have been established instead. Father expressly conceded on appeal that § (c)(i) supported termination, leaving only best interests at issue. He had largely failed to participate in the proceedings, never attended scheduled parenting time or classes, repeatedly violated orders by appearing at the mother’s home, had an extensive criminal and domestic-violence history, and previously lost parental rights to seven other children. On appeal, father relied on JMG to argue that the DHHS and trial court should have preserved the parent-child relationship through a guardianship. The court rejected his reading of that case. “‘A trial court is not required to establish a guardianship in lieu of termination if it is not in the child’s best interests to do so.’” The trial court specifically considered guardianship and found it would not provide the children “with the permanency and stability they need and deserve.” Given father’s prior terminations, absence from services and parenting time, violations of court orders, and other serious concerns, the trial court found that “[t]hese very serious concerns outweigh the possible merits of a guardianship or the fact that relative placement weighs against termination.” The court likewise rejected his contention that the trial court overlooked the children’s relative placement. The trial court expressly recognized that “this factor weighs against termination,” but concluded the father’s criminal history, failure to provide for the children, and failure to participate in services “far outweigh . . . the fact that relative placement weighs against termination.” Thus, the best-interest determination was not erroneous. Affirmed.