In Re Zlr, 347 S.W.3d 601

Child Z.L.R. was born October 8, 2007; hospital staff took Child into protective custody due to the mother's condition and behavior.
Father, R.M., located in county jail, identified as Child's biological father and initially aided by the Division in locating him for testing; he later remained incarcerated for most of Child's life.
Child was placed in a Greene County traditional foster home; placement with Father's relatives was found not in Child's best interests.
Division filed a petition to terminate parental rights of both parents on October 20, 2008; grandmother moved to intervene for placement.
Initial termination trial occurred April 8, 2009, resulting in termination for several grounds, which this Court reversed in part in Z.L.R., I, remanding for proper consideration of the evidence.
Remand proceedings on August 4, 2010 considered failure to rectify; telephone contact with Child remained restricted; Father continued some prison-based programs, but had not provided regular support or housing plans.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Law of the case preclusion	Father argues law-of-the-case precludes termination based on evidence.	Father contends the prior reversal removed any presumption of unfitness and allows relitigation.	No law-of-the-case preclusion; no presumption of parental unfitness due to incarceration.
Failure to rectify	Father failed to rectify by not providing housing/financial support and not showing future ability to care for Child.	Division argues lack of timely, stable housing and support demonstrates failure to rectify.	Evidence supports failure to rectify for purposes of termination.
Parental unfitness	Father is presumptively unfit due to incarceration and lack of bond, despite programs and cards to Child.	Father asserts no bond exists; incarceration alone does not establish unfitness; he engaged in programs and contact attempts.	There is substantial evidence of unfitness given long-term incarceration, no physical contact, no bond, and lack of foreseeable ability to meet needs.
Best interests	Termination is in Child's best interest given no bond, prolonged absence, and stable foster placement.	Family involvement and potential post-release support argue against termination; Child would lose contact with Father and his family.	Termination is in Child's best interest based on totality of circumstances and lack of bond.

In re Z.L.R., 306 S.W.3d 632 (Mo.App.2010) (reversed termination on unfitness grounds and remanded for proper analysis)
In the Interest of I.Q.S., 200 S.W.3d 599 (Mo.App.2006) (standard for appellate review of termination findings)
P.L.O., 131 S.W.3d 782 (Mo.banc 2004) (best-interests framework for termination findings)
T.W.C., 316 S.W.3d 538 (Mo.App.2010) (absence of bond and lengthy incarceration support termination)
In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.banc 2004) (importance of stable, permanent home and attachment impact)
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.App.2009) (lack of bonding supports termination decision)
In re J.L.B., 9 S.W.3d 30 (Mo.App.1999) (deference to trial-court credibility determinations)
In re Adoption of W.B.L., 681 S.W.2d 452 (Mo.banc 1984) (formative standard for best interests and parental rights termination)