Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); In re Moss Minors; In re Ellis; In re Hudson; In re HRC; In re Miller; In re JK; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Terry; Reasonable efforts at reunification in the context of respondents’ impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC § 12101 et seq.)

The trial court properly terminated both respondents-parents’ parental rights to the children where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in their best interests. The evidence showed that the respondent-mother “suffered from a cognitive impairment and could not care for herself without assistance. She received supplemental social security income, but could not handle money, and she had a payee.” Expert witnesses opined that she “could not care for the children independently, and that she could parent the children only if she lived with other adults who made decisions for her.” The mother “herself acknowledged that she needed assistance caring for the children. Her support from her family was inconsistent, and would disappear at times if she and her father and stepmother had a disagreement.” Significantly, no evidence established that a time would come when the mother “would not need considerable assistance caring both for herself and the children.” Also, her “statement that she would discontinue services if she regained custody of the children constituted evidence that the children would be at risk of harm if returned to her custody.” As to the respondent-father’s claim that the DHHS failed to make reasonable accommodations for his cognitive impairment under the ADA, the court held that the DHHS made reasonable efforts at reunification in the context of respondents’ impairments, thereby satisfying the ADA’s reasonable-accommodations requirement. Affirmed.