Opinion ID: 1827095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to terminate parental rights.

Text: The trial court's judgment of disposition ordered that Child be placed with and returned to the physical and legal custody of his parents, D.H. and B.H., with protective supervision by the Department of Social Services[.] State asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it did not terminate parental rights following its determination that Child was abused and neglected. Termination of parental rights is not as mechanical as State suggests. The finding of dependency and neglect by clear and convincing evidence does not of itself warrant termination of parental rights. Termination of parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child and is also the least restrictive alternative available commensurate with those interests. State ex rel. K.C., 414 N.W.2d 616, 620 (S.D.1987). The least restrictive alternative is viewed from the child's point of view ... as the prime concern of the court is the child. The best interests of the child must prevail. In re S., V. & L.W., 398 N.W.2d 136, 139 (S.D.1986); K.C., 414 N.W.2d at 620. State asserts that since the determination had been made that Parents were sexual abusers who have not received counseling, the only matter which was relevant in J.A.H.'s case was whether or not the parents had sought treatment as sexual abuse offenders. State asserts too much. This was not the only relevant consideration and the record reflects the trial court's consideration of additional issues. The trial court did find though, that [t]he sole issue in dispute is whether [Parents] should have to undergo sexual abuse therapy before [Child] can be returned. But this observation and finding does not support State's assertion that the trial court improperly placed the concerns of Parents ahead of Child's concerns. There was testimony before the trial court that even though Parents were not receiving sexual abuse therapy, they were participating in programs and counseling sessions and their parenting skills were improving. The trial judge was fully aware of the previous sexual abuse Parents perpetrated upon their other children and that there was a potential for sexual abuse problems to recur. However, State has not shown Parents were sexually abusing Child. State argues the trial court improperly allowed Parents to relitigate the issue of whether or not they sexually abused Brother and Sister. The trial court ordered the parties not to offer evidence to attack the previous findings of fact and conclusions of law. Though there may have been some testimony which can be characterized as inadmissible, State has not overcome the presumption that the trial court disregarded such testimony. In re R.S.S., 474 N.W.2d 743, 750 (S.D.1991); State ex rel. M.W., 374 N.W.2d 889, 892 (S.D.1985). A dispositional finding of fact wherein it is noted that testimony was given which included opinions that prior sexual abuse did not occur, is not here sufficient to overcome the presumption the testimony was disregarded because the trial court found it was bound by the prior determination that sexual abuse did occur and that Parents were the perpetrators. In a trial to the court in which admissible evidence supports the findings, additional evidence, though inadmissible, is nonprejudicial. R.S.S., 474 N.W.2d at 750 (citations omitted). There was conflicting testimony before the trial court whether it was in the best interests of this child at this time to terminate parental rights. The court concluded it was not in Child's best interest at this time. Although the trial court's conclusion may be different from what this court would have concluded, the question is not whether we would have made the same findings the trial court did; rather, the question is whether, after a review of all the evidence, we are convinced that a mistake has been made. S.W., 428 N.W.2d at 525 (citations omitted). We are not convinced the trial court made a mistake and thereby abused its discretion when it determined it was in Child's best interests to return him to the care and custody of Parents.