Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); Children’s best interests; In re White; In re Moss Minors; People v. Cross; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Frey

Holding that termination was in the children best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. She pointed to testimony indicating both strong bonds and love between her and the children. Moreover, she argued that she did not medically neglect the children and that “the selected foster home was not a positive adoptive home.” In her view, this moved the trial court’s best-interest analysis in her favor. At the onset of the case, she “admitted to using both cocaine and crack cocaine.” The DHHS provided her with drug screening and programs intended to mitigate her substance abuse. However, she “failed to consistently attend these programs or participate.” Over the course of the case, she only completed 11 drug screens. Each one was positive for marijuana or cocaine. She missed or refused to participate in 107 drug screens. Her ongoing drug use and refusal to mitigate her substance abuse was indicative of her failure to participate in services. Moreover, although the mother argued that she neither neglected nor harmed the children, the record reflected that both of them “were medically obese upon entering the care of the trial court. The DHHS attempted to address this by referring [the mother] to a parenting class intended to remedy her parenting skills, and the trial court put in place a ‘no sugar rule’ to assist the” children in improving their health. However, she violated this rule by bringing brownies to the children during parenting time. When the DHHS confronted her, she became extremely upset and refused to address the issue. Thus, contrary to her claim that she appropriately cared for and provided stability to the children, the record supported the trial court’s finding that her parenting skills negatively impacted their health. Moreover, her claim that foster care was inappropriate or harmful for them was also without support. The “children were each behaviorally and cognitively deficient when brought into foster care, but improved significantly while in foster care because of therapy and counseling.” It was true that they were bonded with the mother and loved her. “The trial court explicitly recognized this. However, the trial court appropriately weighed this single factor favoring the maintenance of mother’s parental rights against the emotional, mental, and physical well-being of the” children. It did not clearly err by finding that their need for permanency and stability weighed in favor of termination.