Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Best interests of the children; In re Moss Minors; In re Frey; Parent-child bond; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her parental rights were terminated based primarily on resource availability, lack of parenting skills, and her inability to maintain stable employment. The trial court also noted that the children had a definite need for permanency, stability, and finality, and that termination was in their best interests. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred in its best-interests determination, finding its analysis “was straightforward and exceptionally thorough.” After listening carefully to the “testimony given, the arguments made, and the parental issues that had yet to be resolved, the trial court found that a preponderance of the evidence supported that it was is in the best interests of [the children] to terminate respondent’s parental rights.” It did not err in this determination, and, in fact, there was “an abundance of evidence to support it . . . .”