Opinion ID: 4519320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: B.’s best interests.

Text: ¶56 In this case, A.B. resides with Grandmother and has done so for over two years. Despite this, A.B. has a strong, close bond with Mother, who provides significant parenting to A.B. When asked about the impact on A.B. if his ties to his mother were permanently severed, CPS Larcom admitted “mother should have continued contact with A.B.”—yet the Department advocated for a disposition, which is arguably designed to eliminate a relationship between A.B. and his Mother. Grandmother and Mother testified they have been co-parenting A.B. and CPS Larcom testified Grandmother is assertive enough to challenge Mother and look out for A.B.’s best interests. Grandmother has, throughout the 27 duration of the case, proven she is able to keep A.B. safe, while maintaining a positive and safe relationship with Mother, and she undoubtedly would continue to do so whether the legal relationship be that of guardian or adoptive parent. It is unrefuted Mother has participated in the care of A.B. and made substantial gains in parenting skills. Mother and Grandmother—who is the Department’s identified adoptive placement and who the Department believes has the capacity to determine A.B.’s best interest and to act to meet those interests—agree that given time, Mother could regain her ability to parent A.B. and that, if she does so, it would be in A.B.’s best interest to return to Mother’s care. While Grandmother expressed concern for her daughter that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in Mother’s best interests, there was no evidence Grandmother would forego A.B.’s best interests merely because she also has concerns for her own daughter. All members of A.B.s family, including Grandmother, Mother, and Father, as well as A.B.’s visit coach, the Guardian Ad Litem, and the CASA worker believe guardianship, rather than termination, is in A.B.’s best interest. ¶57 The testimony of CPS Larcom and CPS Sanderson expressing a preference for adoption over guardianship seems related to a generalized belief—which is now being shown to be unfounded by the emerging research—that adoption is the preferred permanency option to a guardianship, rather than to an individualized consideration of A.B.’s best interests under the circumstances of this case. CPS Larcom testified that in her professional opinion adoption is the best permanency option, “All my training and experience, in the child welfare systems, says that the primary consideration, as an alternative plan [to reunification], should be adoption.” Unfortunately, the testimony of 28 the CPS workers also demonstrates a desire to sanction Mother for failing to adequately address her substance use disorder. CPS Larcom admitted guardianship would have been available to Mother a year prior because she was “far more engaged in her treatment” but was now not being offered. CPS Sanderson actually testified that not terminating Mother’s rights would “almost reward [Mother], in a way, for not following her treatment plan. That her - - she would continue to still have her rights.” This testimony not only discounts the concept that what is in this family’s best interest is quite likely in A.B.’s best interests, it also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the disease of addiction. ¶58 With very little to no risk Mother would ever seek to dissolve the guardianship,5 termination of Mother’s parental rights—such that Grandmother is now his mother and Mother is now his sister—provided no real benefit to A.B. in terms of stability, permanency, and well-being, while simultaneously disrupting the best interests of his family. Further, in the event of Grandmother’s death or incapacity, the termination of Mother’s parental rights would eliminate Mother as a future placement option—even if at that time, she continues to have a strong parental bond with A.B., is a safe and appropriate caregiver, and is the Department’s preferred placement.6 5 CPS Larcom identified Father as her primary concern for future litigation to dissolve the guardianship. Father’s parental rights have been terminated and he has not appealed the termination. Mother and Grandmother both testified Mother would not file in court to regain custody of A.B. 6 Department policy precludes placement with individuals whose parental rights to their children have been terminated. 29 ¶59 It is, at best, incongruous for the Department to assert Grandmother is the primary caregiver best suited for making decisions on behalf of A.B. and determining A.B.’s best interests and providing for them, but then not defer determination of what is in A.B.’s best interest—preservation of his Mother’s parental rights—to her and instead force an adoption upon her. Here, there is no doubt Mother will continue to be engaged in A.B.’s life as she has been over the duration of this case. In the event Mother regains the ability to parent on a full-time basis, Grandmother will most likely return A.B. to her care, regardless of the legal termination of Mother’s parental rights. Under the circumstances created by the Department here, it is unlikely Grandmother will seek further assistance from the Department, even if she were in need of such. Rather than seek termination of Mother’s parental rights, I believe it would have been far more prudent for the Department to work with A.B.’s family, not against them, to accomplish the guardianship. /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON