Opinion ID: 1986881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional findings as to best interests required for termination under sections 211.447.4(2) and (3)

Text: Section 211.447.6 provides the following factors that are relevant to determining whether termination is in a child's best interests: When considering whether to terminate the parent-child relationship pursuant to subsection 2 or 3 of this section or subdivision (1), (2), (3) or (4) of subsection 4 of this section, the court shall evaluate and make findings on the following factors, when appropriate and applicable to the case: (1) The emotional ties to the birth parent; (2) The extent to which the parent has maintained regular visitation or other contact with the child; (3) The extent of payment by the parent for the cost of care and maintenance of the child when financially able to do so including the time that the child is in the custody of the division or other child-placing agency; (4) Whether additional services would be likely to bring about lasting parental adjustment enabling a return of the child to the parent within an ascertainable period of time; (5) The parent's disinterest in or lack of commitment to the child; (6) The conviction of the parent of a felony offense that the court finds is of such a nature that the child will be deprived of a stable home for a period of years; provided, however, that incarceration in and of itself shall not be grounds for termination of parental rights; (7) Deliberate acts of the parent or acts of another of which the parent knew or should have known that subjects the child to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. The trial court concluded that any findings that did not favor termination were not important. The trial court therefore made findings as to factors (1) and (7) only, finding that there are no emotional ties between `The Twins' and `Mother' and that this is a direct result of the deliberate acts of Mother and that the twins are not bonded with Mother, who knew or should have known said acts would subject `The Twins' to a substantial and real risk of physical and mental harm. As discussed above, these findings are not supported by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. The trial court also misapplied factor (7). It requires consideration of [d]eliberate acts of the parent or acts of another of which the parent knew or should have known that subjects the child to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. The phrase of which the parent knew or should have known modifies acts of another. As applied to this case, factor (7) can be phrased as requiring consideration of deliberate acts of Mother that subjects the twins to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. The usage of subjects rather than subjected underscores the importance of considering the future. The trial court merely cited Mother's past acts (i.e., the attempts to place the twins for adoption) and concluded that those acts were abusive. The trial court failed to describe how those past acts indicate a future risk of harm to the twins. The trial court made no other findings under section 211.447.6, specifically stating that it found all omitted factors irrelevant. That is incorrect. The goal of a termination hearing is not to justify termination, but to determine if grounds exist for termination and if termination is in the child's best interests. Each factor that has application to the facts is relevant and a finding must be made on it, not merely on those factors that favor termination. When appropriate and applicable to the case, the trial court, therefore, shall evaluate and make findings on these additional best interests factors. Sec. 211.447.6. Here, findings on other factors in section 211.447.6 were quite relevant and should have been made by the trial court because there was evidence presented on them, much of which arguably would favor Mother. T.A.S. I at 811. For instance, as to factor (2), the evidence showed that Mother visited the children every day in the hospital for the two months after they were born, even expressing milk for them. When Mother placed the twins up for adoption, she sought an open adoption so she could maintain visitation with them. Mother saw the twins at every permitted opportunity. It was the trial court that limited her visitation. As to factor (3), she paid child support voluntarily, even after the trial court limited her visitation. Factor (4) could only weigh in favor of Mother's claim, given that she has complied with the entire parenting plan and took advantage of all offered services. Factor (5) (interest in and commitment to the child) also favors Mother. Finally, Mother has committed no felony offensesfactor (6). Therefore, the trial court's findings as to section 211.447.6 are either absent or insufficient, and such deficiencies constitute error.