Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); In re Moss Minors; In re White; In re Mason; In re Williams; The children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Frey; Residential substance abuse treatment program (RSAT)

[Unpublished opinion.] The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights to the two children (BP and KP) where §§ (c)(i) and (g) were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in their best interests. She claimed the trial court “failed to consider the positive steps that she was taking to overcome her addiction and become reunited with the children.” She noted the testimony provided by a substance abuse counselor as to the success of the RSAT program and her “fair” prognosis; the testimony by KP’s paternal grandmother as to respondent’s written contact with KP, her “great love” for KP, and the grandmother’s opinion of respondent’s care of KP; the testimony by the DHS foster care case worker as to her care for KP while she was at a drug treatment program; and her own testimony, during which she “took full responsibility for her actions and described her improvement and activities during her incarceration.” However, despite this testimony, the record clearly showed that she “continued to struggle with unresolved substance abuse issues throughout the proceedings.” Because of her addiction to meth, “she was incarcerated numerous times, including at the time of the termination hearing.” It was apparent that she “was only able to control her substance abuse issues in structured environments, and she often relapsed shortly after being released from jail or a treatment program.” Because respondent was frequently incarcerated, she “failed to complete or participate in many of the services that were offered to address her parenting skills and ability to care for” BP and KP. She also never obtained stable housing or employment. Thus, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that she was unable to provide proper care and custody for BP and KP. For the same reasons, it was also evident that “the conditions that led to adjudication, which included ongoing substance abuse and a related inability to adequately care and provide for” BP and KP, “continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing.” Further, the evidence indicated that there was no reasonable expectation that respondent would “be able to provide care and custody within a reasonable time considering” their young ages, and that “there [was] no reasonable likelihood that the conditions [that led to adjudication would] be rectified within a reasonable time” given their ages. Affirmed.