Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); In re Laster; In re Moss Minors; In re White; In re BZ; Children’s best interests; In re Jones; In re VanDalen; In re Frey

The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights to her children where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in their best interests. Respondent is disabled, and while the specific nature of her incapacity was unclear from the record, it appeared that she “is indeed legally incapacitated, and has both short-term and long-term memory loss.” During her pregnancy, she was in a “coma for 8½ months, and she testified that her coma resulted from having a substance ‘slipped’ to her.” Since becoming disabled, she has required a legal guardian. A review of the record also confirmed that she did not have adequate support to help care for the children. There was record evidence confirming that she “required someone to be there to supervise and help her at all times with her children.” Thus, it was clear that she did not have the necessary support to provide proper care or custody for the children. At the termination hearing, she contended that “she did not need a guardian but admitted that she forgot appointments and forgot to take her medicine without her father” (her guardian at most points during the lower court proceedings) to remind her. Also, a psychiatrist evaluation, admitted into the record as an exhibit, concluded that “respondent’s prognosis for independent parenting of the children was ‘guarded[.]’” The court held that the “trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist, and there was no reasonable expectation that they would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” the children’s age. Also, the same facts provided clear and convincing evidence to support termination of respondent’s parental rights under §§ (g) and (j). “A parent’s failure to comply with his or her service plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide a child with proper care and custody and that the child may be harmed if returned to the parent’s home.” Affirmed.