Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); In re Trejo Minors; Children’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; In re White

[Unpublished opinion.] Holding that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights under §§ (c)(i) and (g), and correctly determined that doing so was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating her rights. “Respondent failed to provide proper care and custody for both children during all but approximately three weeks of the pendency of this action, during which time” she violated the safety plan put in place by the trial court and DHS. She medically neglected one child (QW) and placed the other (AE) “in physical danger by assaulting another person while she held AE in her arms.” While she “participated in the services to help her become a better parent and avoid such situations in the future, she clearly did not benefit from these services, as she persisted in her criminality and violent behavior.” She was also unable to “obtain a job or become financially independent. For these reasons, several witnesses explained that unsupervised parenting time, much less the return of the children to respondent’s care, would not be possible in the near or long term.” According to her therapist, “respondent would ‘need ongoing support [and] intervention’ to properly raise the children.” As to their best interests, the trial court “noted that respondent had a strong bond with AE and QW.” But it also accurately observed that her “behavior and general inability to parent created a chaotic social environment, and negatively affected her children’s emotional and mental wellbeing.” A social worker testified that “QW would ‘throw[] up’ when strangers entered the home and ‘hide[] behind walls’ to avoid her,” and that “AE exhibited great stress by ‘pulling her hair out by the patches.’ Other witnesses testified” that the children needed “permanence and stability in their home life as soon as possible.”