Termination under § (i); Abandoned claim; In the Matter of Toler; Plain error review; In re Utrera; Judicial notice of facts contained in the transcript; MRE 201; Principle that only one statutory ground is required; In re Frey; Child’s best interests; In re Schadler; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (i) supported termination, and that it was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. It found “no clear error in the trial court’s conclusion that respondent continued to choose drugs over her child. This alone was sufficient to terminate” her parental rights under § (i). Officers responding to a 911 call of a heroin overdose found her “unconscious with an empty bottle of Narcan near her and a tourniquet on her left arm.” They also discovered suspected meth in her backpack, and while she denied that it was hers, she admitted she had used meth in the last four days. The officers “testified that when she regained consciousness, her behavior was consistent with someone who was under the influence of narcotics. Their testimony provided clear and convincing evidence of respondent’s continued drug use. And, despite respondent’s testimony that she was seeking substance abuse treatment, there was no evidence” that she had actually addressed her issues. As to her contention that the trial court relied mostly on “second-hand information” and assumptions, even if a DHHS worker’s testimony about the prior termination proceedings was inadmissible, the trial court “personally reviewed the transcript from the prior termination hearing, revealing the same facts as testified to by the DHHS worker. Because the trial court could properly take judicial notice of the facts contained in the transcript, MRE 201, and the transcript of the prior termination hearing was provided as an exhibit,” there was no merit to respondent’s argument. The evidence showed that she had not rectified the conditions that led to the 2017 termination. “Given the current evidence of respondent’s continuing drug use, incarceration, and lack of housing, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating” her rights. As to the child’s best interests, it acknowledged there may have been a bond between respondent and the child, but “also properly emphasized that respondent could not care for the child because she was continually incarcerated and she was unable to take care of herself.”