Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g), (j), & (l); Child’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Frey; In re Jones; In re White

[Unpublished opinion.] Concluding that the preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that terminating the respondents-parents’ parental rights to the child was in his best interests, the court held that the trial court did not err in terminating their rights. While the proceeding only lasted a few months, respondents had their parental rights to another child terminated in 2014. “Before the earlier termination hearing, respondents received services for more than a year and ‘failed to derive any lasting benefit’ from those services.” The child’s foster care caseworker testified that they “had not made any significant change in their lives since their rights were terminated” to the other child. The evidence also established that they “did not have the emotional stability, housing, or financial ability to care for the child.” Further, he was removed from their care shortly after he was born. “He was approximately two months old at the time of the termination hearing, so neither respondent developed a relationship with him that weighed against termination.” Further, he was “doing well developmentally in foster care, and he was healthy. He was with a family who was willing to adopt,” and there was “no indication that respondents would be able to properly care for him” in the foreseeable future. He “deserved the permanency and stability” offered by the foster home. Affirmed.