Termination under § 19b(3)(g); Failure to comply with the PAA; In re JK; Reasonable reunification efforts; A respondent’s responsibility to engage in & benefit from services; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re White

Holding that termination was justified under § (g), that it was in the children’s best interests, and that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. It concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly showed he did not “comply with the case service plan. He never provided proof that he had obtained suitable, independent housing.” Caseworkers at times were not sure where he was living. While he “reported to DHHS and to the trial court that he was employed, he never provided proof of his income. Respondent also failed to submit to a psychological evaluation. Although respondent did submit to a substance abuse assessment, he failed to comply with the recommendations and did not complete substance abuse treatment.” Further, of the 80 random substance screenings that were requested, he only submitted to 10. He “tested positive for marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines during the proceeding, and respondent tested positive for illegal drugs during at least one of his visits with the” children. In addition, he did not “complete a parenting class, failed to participate in the ‘parent partner program,’ and failed to consistently attend parenting time.” While he contended he needed more time to participate in services to conquer drug addiction, the record showed he “was offered a myriad of services, including inpatient treatment, to treat his substance abuse issues. Respondent failed to take advantage of these services, and” showed a lack of commitment during the case. As to the children’s best interests, the record did not indicate he was bonded to them, and at the time of termination, he had not seen them in over a year. Further, they “were doing well in their placement, where their special needs were being addressed and where they had the opportunity to obtain permanency.” A caseworker reported that they “were bonded to their foster parents,” whom one of the children referred to as “mom and dad.”