Opinion ID: 1886607
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Family Court's Consideration of Guardianship as an Alternative to Terminating Tara's Parental Rights

Text: Tara contends that in determining Trevor Jr.'s best interests, the Family Court was required to consider placing Trevor Jr. under a guardianship as an alternative to terminating her parental rights. We agree, but find that was done here, albeit implicitly. A judicial determination of a child's best interests does not take place in a vacuum. Because the Vincents voluntarily stayed their guardianship petition pending the court's decision on termination, the Family Court would have explicitly considered the guardianship petition had it concluded that termination was not in Trevor Jr.'s best interests. Although the Family Court was not required to address guardianship explicitly, in order to determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child[,] [13] where (as here) a guardianship is presented as an alternative, the Family Court must have determined implicitly that the guardianship alternative would not serve the child's best interests. [14]