Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re Hudson; Children’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re White; In re Schadler

Holding that § (j) existed and termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. He alleged “that his single act of masturbating near the children did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he posed a risk of harm to his children in the absence of evidence of long-term neglect or a pattern of abuse.” Testimony indicated that he “resided in a home with three bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a storage room. The children routinely came into their parents’ bedroom and fell asleep, but were later carried to their own room.” In 2019, the mother left them “in her bedroom and went to lay on the couch. Respondent brought her a glass of water, then returned to the bedroom and closed the door. The mother became suspicious because doors in her home were not closed.” She entered the room to find him “masturbating within two inches of her eldest child.” The mother carried her “children out of the door and texted a friend to call the police. She explained that there was a history of domestic violence by respondent against her, the police had responded on 10 to 15 occasions, and there were two prior PPOs obtained by her against respondent.” She also testified to injuries inflicted by him “and verbal abuse that occurred in front of the children.” Although he “denied actual physical abuse of the mother, he acknowledged that his words and his stature had an emotional impact on the mother and may have caused her to fear a physical assault. He further acknowledged that the police were called by the mother or neighbors on multiple occasions, and he was arrested for domestic violence on two occasions.” The harm necessary to satisfy § (j) “is not limited to physical harm, but may be satisfied by emotional harm.” The court held that “irrespective of the fact that only one act of sexual gratification occurred, the evidence established a long-term course of physical and verbal assaults that prompted the mother to obtain two PPOs against respondent. Although respondent denied the actual physical assault of the mother, he admitted to verbal assaults that occurred in front of the children.” Despite their removal from his care, he did not provide any support for the children’s maintenance. He was allowed supervised visits, yet he “did not bring any snacks or necessities for his children, but relied on his mother to ensure the children were fed.”