Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); Harmless error

While the court concluded that the trial court erred in terminating respondent-father’s parental rights under § (g), it found the error was harmless because termination was appropriate under § (c)(i). The trial court here “incorrectly applied the pre-amended version of” § (g), under which termination was proper if “[t]he parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.” Under the amended version, termination “is proper when ‘[t]he parent, although, in the court’s discretion, financially able to do so, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.’” Because it applied the pre-amendment version, “the trial court did not determine if respondent was financially able to provide proper care or custody for” the child at issue, MW. In addition, given that it determined he “‘was not employed other than briefly at the beginning of the case,’ respondent presumably did not have the financial ability to provide proper care and custody of MW.” But the error was harmless because there was ample record support for terminating his parental rights under § (c)(i), and only one statutory ground must be established. The conditions that led to his adjudication “were respondent’s substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health issues, and a lack of employment. Given respondent’s lack of compliance with the case service plan, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that respondent failed to rectify these conditions and was unlikely to do so within a reasonable time.” Affirmed.