Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Frey; The child’s best interests; In re Moss Minors

[Unpublished opinion.] The court affirmed the trial court’s termination of the respondent-mother’s parental rights to the child (ND), but reversed and remanded to “properly” determine the child’s best interests. The trial court properly terminated respondent’s parental rights under §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j). The DHS initially took custody of ND because of respondent’s abusive relationship with her live-in boyfriend. The boyfriend committed acts of domestic violence against her—and, at times, did so in front of ND. He also forced them to remain inside his apartment throughout the day. “Despite his continued physical and emotional abuse—and the fact that his behavior was a precipitating cause for the removal” of ND—she “remained in a relationship with this boyfriend throughout the proceedings.” Thus, the trial court correctly held that “(1) the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist; and (2) respondent’s living arrangements with a violent man put ND at risk of physical and emotional harm.” Moreover, the trial court also accurately found that she lacked the ability to “provide proper care or custody for” ND pursuant to § (g). She failed to attend the counseling and therapy sessions offered by the DHS, which might have convinced her to end the dangerous relationship with her boyfriend and begin an independent life. Despite the state’s efforts to assist respondent “in obtaining both a job and an apartment, she failed to follow up on the opportunities afforded to her by this assistance, and did not maintain a steady income or secure a residence separate from her abusive boyfriend.” She also evinced little interest in regaining custody of ND: she “did not attend either the termination or best interests hearing, missed many visitation times, and did not remain in contact with” the DHS.