Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); In re Beck; In re Hudson; In re BZ; In re Miller; In re Mason

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ (g) and (j) were established, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to the child (R). As to § (g), he asserted that he executed a power of attorney for his mother to care for R, “thereby providing proper care and custody for his daughter, that he participated in every service available to him in prison and that he had a plan to obtain a job and housing upon his release.” The trial court correctly determined that R’s “placement with her grandmother did not occur because respondent delegated his parental authority . . . .” Instead, R was placed with her grandmother “simply because the [DHHS] investigated the paternal grandmother and determined her to be an appropriate placement for” R. The trial court gave him credit “for not obstructing that placement, but it refused to credit him for [R’s] placement and care, an important distinction.” In addition, it “correctly acknowledged that incarceration alone could not support termination, but” noted that he had an “incredibly” extensive criminal history. He testified that he had 23 adult criminal convictions, and that before his incarceration he was using meth every day. Further, although he “had taken many classes in prison during the time affecting this matter, he had also taken classes and completed extensive treatment before the current proceedings. Yet, he once again fell into his old problematic patterns and did not demonstrate any effective, positive changes in his behaviors” as to parenting. The trial court also noted that his “feedback from his class instructors was that he would require 6 to 12 months of outpatient treatment for substance abuse after his release from prison.” The trial court noted that “the length of time that it would take respondent to be in a position to adequately parent [R] was unreasonably long considering [R’s] age even if respondent were released from prison at the earliest possible date.” Thus, it found that he failed to provide proper care and custody for R “and that there was no reasonable expectation that he would be able to do so within a reasonable time given her age.” Finally, considering his “very extensive criminal record, his substantial history of drug abuse, his involvement in operating a meth lab, his minimal communications with [R], and his prior terminations and associated parenting failures,” the trial court did not clearly err by finding that § (j) was also proven.