Termination under § 19b(3)(g); In re JK; Principle thar only one statutory ground is required; In re HRC; Reunification efforts; A respondent’s responsibility to participate in & benefit from offered services; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re Trejo Minors; In re White; In re CR

Holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (g), and that it was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. The record showed that she was “failed to comply with and benefit from the case service plan.” She never produced paperwork to show a legal income, and while she obtained housing, it “was not suitable for the children. Respondent acknowledged at the termination hearing that she did not have enough beds for” them. A visiting caseworker on one occasion saw marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia on the coffee table. Respondent left it in plain sight even though she knew the caseworker was coming to the house. Although she contended “on appeal that she had a valid medical marijuana card, she failed to establish during the proceeding that she did not have an issue with substance abuse. Indeed,” despite the fact she was “diagnosed with alcohol and cannabis dependency during the proceeding, she never participated in treatment and did not submit to any drug screenings.” Further, she only submitted to a required psychological evaluation very late in the case “and never participated in counseling to treat her generalized anxiety disorder.” She also did not consistently attend visitation, which affected the children’s behavior and one child’s (A) mental health. A “required mental health treatment” and had physical health issues as well. His treatment was delayed at times due to “respondent’s failure to provide consent for medical testing and medication.” Evidence also supported that the other two children “viewed respondent as a playmate” rather than a parent. While she could have benefitted from a parenting skills class, she did not complete the required class. Her intensive in-home services, designed to help her build appropriate parenting skills and establish stability, were twice terminated due to her noncompliance. The court noted that there was no evidence she “would have been able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time given” the children’s ages. As to their best interests, she consistently displayed “a lack of commitment, an inability or unwillingness to accept responsibility, and an inability to provide” them with stability and permanency. They “were doing well in their respective placements, where they had the opportunity to obtain permanency.”