Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); Children’s best interests

Holding that §§ (c)(i) and (g) existed and the trial court did not clearly err by concluding termination was in the children’s (OG-1 and OG-2) best interests, the court affirmed. As to § (c)(i), there was “no dispute that the 182-day statutory period was met for both children. The conditions that led to OG-1’s adjudication were respondent-mother’s substance-abuse problems and OG-1’s health at the time of removal. The conditions that led to OG-2’s adjudication were OG-1’s original removal and the continued substance-abuse problems in the home.” The court held that considering the significant evidence that the mother’s “substance abuse remained an issue that had not been rectified, we are not ‘left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Further, the record supported the trial court’s finding that termination was warranted under § (g). In light of the evidence, the trial court did not clearly err when it determined that the mother’s continued struggle with meth, “her inconsistency in complying with services and visitation, her recent [meth] use, and her history of past neglect prevented her from providing proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the ages of the children.”