Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), & (j); In re White; Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-father’s parental rights to the child (AJS) where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in the child’s best interests. Although the court held that to the extent that the trial court relied on § (c)(i) it clearly erred, respondent’s substance abuse qualified as an “[o]ther condition” causing AJS to come within the court’s jurisdiction (§ (c)(ii)). Further, he “received services to rectify his substance abuse, including drug screens, substance abuse counseling, and a significant period of time to show compliance and benefit from the services offered.” Despite the services, respondent continued to test positive or miss drug screens. And, although his last positive screen was in 3/16, “he had missed drug screens after that date, including missing three screens in the approximately one-month period between the second day of the termination hearing and the third day of the termination hearing.” There was also testimony that on one occasion he “deliberately dumped a urine sample and then left after refusing to give a second sample.” Moreover, despite the missed and positive drug screens, he testified that “he did not believe he had a substance abuse problem.” Defense counsel argued that “the drug screens were not accurate given that respondent self-reported using marijuana on a regular basis despite the fact that it did not turn up in the drug screens.” The child was three years old and had been in foster care for almost his entire life. Based on the record before the court, it could not hold that “the trial court clearly erred in finding that respondent had failed to rectify the condition and would be unable to do so within a reasonable time considering AJS’s young age.” Termination was also proper under §§ (g) and (j). Affirmed.