David, J.
This case involves the fundamental right of a parent to the care, custody, and control of his or her child. Because this relationship should be severed only when all reasonable efforts to maintain the relationship have failed, we reverse the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of Father to his son, R.S., II.
….
On appeal, Father argued that there was insufficient clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the R.S.’s best interests and that there was not a satisfactory plan for the care of R.S. after termination. Because we are persuaded that the findings do not support the conclusion that termination is in R.S.’s best interests, we do not reach the issue of whether there was a satisfactory plan for the care and treatment of R.S. See In re G.Y., 904 N.E.2d 1257, 1261 (Ind. 2009) (explaining that “if the State fails to prove any one of these four statutory elements, then it is not entitled to a judgment terminating parental rights”).
….
…Rather, it is overwhelmingly apparent through the trial court’s own findings and testimony provided at the termination hearing that Father and R.S. both love one another and have a close bond. Additionally, Father exercised parenting time with R.S. two to three times a week, including overnights with R.S., and it is the trial court’s own conclusion that continued visitation with Father is in R.S.’s best interests. Father’s failure to attend every scheduled supervised visitation or attend hearings during the course of the CHINS proceedings is not clear and convincing evidence that Father is uninterested or unwilling to parent R.S. While we strongly encourage parents to comply with the procedures and practices set out by the court and DCS when a child has been found a CHINS, we cannot ignore the fostered relationship, parenting, and individual improvement efforts that Father has personally undertaken.
Moreover, establishing permanency for R.S. was repeatedly expressed as a reason for termination. R.S. does currently have a stable home environment with Grandmother. However, when a child is in relative placement, and the permanency plan is adoption into the home where the child has lived for years already, prolonging the adoption is unlikely to have an effect upon the child. See Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615, 619, 623 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Further, even when a father has had a “troubled past” and “failings as a parent,” our courts will also recognize “the positive steps [a] [f]ather has taken to turn his life around for the sake of himself and his children.” Id. at 623. This is true even if the parent is not ready to “undertake full care” of the child and admits as much, but still wants a “chance to establish himself in the community and to participate in services . . . to make him a better person and parent.” Id. In the present case, Father has repeatedly expressed his desire and willingness to continue to develop as a person and a parent for R.S.
….
While we understand the obstacles presented when a parent fails to appear for hearings or does not participate in referred services, “[t]ermination is intended as a last resort, available only when all other reasonable efforts have failed.” [Footnote omitted.] In re V.A., 51 N.E.3d 1140, 1151-52 (Ind. 2016) (quoting In re I.A., 934 N.E.2d 1127, 1136 (Ind. 2010)). Given the loving bond that R.S. and Father share, Father’s successful completion of multiple self-improvement and parenting courses, Father’s successful completion of probation, his repeatedly expressed desire to parent R.S., and his exercise of regular visitation with R.S., “we do not believe that this case has reached the ‘last resort’ stage.” In re D.B., 942 N.E.2d 867, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
….
Conclusion
We hold that the trial court’s findings do not clearly and convincingly support its conclusion that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the best interests of R.S. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.
Rush, C.J., Rucker, Massa and Slaughter, J.J., concur.