In re C.T.

CONCURRING OPINION BY

COLVILLE, J.:

¶ 11 concur in the result reached by the Majority Opinion. More specifically, I agree the trial court considered the bond between Father and the Children and that DHS presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion that Father and the Children do not have a significant bond. I note, however, that Father did not have a duty to demonstrate the existence of a bond with the Children. Compare Majority Opinion at 783-84 (“The mere fact that Father participated in supervised visits with his children at McDonald’s restaurant every other week for…