Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), & (j); In re Trejo Minors; In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad Minors; In re JK; Abandoned claim; Berger v. Berger; Child’s best interests; Special accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101 et seq.); In re Terry; In re Hicks; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Newman; In re Fried

The court held that the trial court properly terminated respondents-parents’ parental rights to the child where the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in the child’s best interests. The court first noted that respondent-mother’s failure to address § (i) precluded any relief as to her argument that a statutory ground was not established. In any event, the court held that the evidence supported each of the challenged grounds. As to § (c)(i), the child was removed from her care at birth because he was exposed to marijuana in utero, and because the mother “failed to rectify her parental deficiencies in the prior proceeding, which led to the termination of her parental rights to two other children.” During this case, she “failed to resolve her substance abuse issue or benefit from services. She failed to comply with drug screening until she was required to submit drug screens at parenting time visits.” She also failed to complete individual therapy or continue with mental health treatment. The evidence clearly established that she failed to rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication. Further, considering that she failed to satisfy her treatment plan requirements in her prior case, and her lack of progress here, “there was no reasonable likelihood that she would be able to rectify the conditions within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age.” As to respondent-father, the child could not be placed with him after birth because he did not have adequate housing. He reported having two jobs, but failed to document his earnings. He “had a history of substance abuse, and during the proceedings he never resolved these deficiencies. He failed to participate in substance abuse treatment, did not attend parenting classes, and failed to consistently visit the child.” Although he argued “that he worked conscientiously toward reunification before his efforts were derailed by his injuries and recovery from an automobile accident, he was terminated for noncooperation with parenting classes before the accident.” The father “also refused drug screens before they became a requirement for visitation, and then tested positive for cocaine and THC. He never established housing or made progress toward doing so.” This evidence supported the trial court’s finding that he “failed to rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication and was not reasonably likely to rectify them within a reasonable time, justifying termination under” § (c)(i). Affirmed.