Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); Distinguishing In re Mason; Child’s best interests; In re White

Holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §§ (c)(i) and (g), and that it was in the child’s (T) best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. While he “testified at length about his plans for quickly building a stable life in which he could care for” T, and the supports he would have to help do so, there was “ample evidence casting doubt on respondent’s ability to follow through on his plans and remain in the community without using drugs, reoffending, and further destabilizing” T’s life. After being released from prison in 2018, he “quickly used cocaine, was jailed for two days, released again, beat up his cousin for sleeping with” T’s mother, removed “his electronic monitor, and went on the run.” Although he was working during this period, he failed to send money for T’s care. He tried to stay connected to T via unsanctioned FaceTime calls and visit efforts but did not contact the DHHS “to continue his work toward reunification. For almost six months after disappearing, while” this case was ongoing, he “made a daily choice to prioritize avoiding prison over working toward reunification with his son. This failure to prioritize” T followed his assurance to the trial court that he wished to be part of T’s “life and would do everything necessary to be reunited with” him. The court found Mason distinguishable due to respondent’s behavior. He was twice released, “and both times made choices casting doubt on the reasonable likelihood that” he will be able to provide T proper care and custody within “a reasonable time when next released.” In addition, he did not assert “he was denied services, and he participated in the proceedings throughout the case, except when he was evading arrest. The trial court recognized respondent’s rights could not be terminated purely because he was incarcerated or” due to his criminal history. Given his “past behavior, combined with his behavior both times he was released during the course of this case, there was no error in the trial court’s conclusion that respondent was unlikely to provide" T proper care and custody in a reasonable time. As to T’s best interests, it considered his bond with respondent but found that he was “a stranger” to T, who was strongly bonded to his maternal grandmother. The record evidence supported these findings.