Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); In re Mason; In re Martin; In re BZ; In re Moss Minors; In re White; Credibility of witnesses; In re Miller; Potential emotional harm; In re Hudson; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Reasonable reunification efforts; Housing instability; Whether the lengthy distance from the children’s foster care placement constituted a barrier to reunification; Respondent-father – Relative placement; Whether he was provided with necessary reunification services; In re Frey; Whether he was denied due process when the DHHS ended services; In re Plump

The court held that the trial court properly terminated both respondents-parents’ parental rights to the five children where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in their best interests. Respondent-mother argued that the trial court clearly erred when it found that she lacked stable housing because she had maintained a home in Michigan and she had acquired a home in Wisconsin. She contended that the trial court essentially terminated her parental rights because she could not budget. Her assertions lacked merit because the evidence supported the trial court’s findings about her housing instability, and her inability to budget was directly related to this issue. The issues with respondents’ housing stability preceded the children’s removal. At that time, the mother owed $3,305 in rent and had been evicted from another home for owing $8,400 in rent. She denied that she was evicted from the home, but acknowledged that she moved and that she did not pay rent on the home for four or five months. At the termination hearing, she testified that she had lived in a homeless shelter, temporary lodging, and two different houses in Wisconsin. Also, there was direct evidence that the lack of stable housing was harmful to the children. Additionally, the trial court did not terminate her parental rights because she could not budget. The court was not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake when it found that she could not provide the children with proper care and custody because she lacked stable housing. Respondent-father argued that the trial court erred by finding that he could not provide the children with proper care and custody because he had housing that was not evaluated as a potential placement. He also claimed that he was never given the opportunity to show that he could parent in a home-like setting. He was residing with his mother and her boyfriend, who had allegedly sexually abused one of the children. He himself had said “that his mother would not be a good placement option.” When he received his updated service plan, it clearly indicated that his residence would not be an appropriate placement for the children. Also, the DHHS evaluated and rejected placement with the father’s sister because she lacked room for all of the children. To the extent that he argued he was not given the opportunity to show he could parent in a home-like setting, this was attributable to his decision to live in an inappropriate home. Affirmed.