Termination under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii) & (j); Child’s best interests; Another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights to the child (C) was in C’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. On appeal, respondent only challenged the trial court’s best-interest determination. She contended C wanted to return to her care at the time of the termination. But the court concluded the record did not support that they had a healthy bond. C “was removed from respondent’s care because respondent refused to participate in services to avoid removal.” There was evidence that they “had engaged in physical altercations before removal occurred and that respondent had failed to adequately provide for [C]. Respondent did not attend the preliminary hearing despite being provided with notice, and a CPS worker testified that respondent indicated that she did not ‘want’ [C].” After being taken into care, C refused contact with respondent for a time. While C later agreed to visitation, respondent participated in only 5 of 42 offered visitations, 15 of which “did not occur because [C] refused to see respondent, and [C] sometimes had panic attacks when confronted with the possibility of returning to respondent’s care. Respondent ceased contact with DHHS and [C] for extended periods of time during the proceeding and, at the time of termination, respondent had not had ‘authorized parenting times’ with” C for approximately eight months. In addition, she had shown an inability to provide stability for C and there was no indication that she would be able to effectively parent C, “who had mental health issues and who considered respondent to be a friend.” The court noted that “respondent refused to address any of her issues during the 17-month proceeding and denied substance use despite testing positive for amphetamines and” meth. The record showed that C “was doing well in her placement.” She bonded with her foster parents, whom she referred to as “mom” and “dad.” She had been placed with them “for a majority of the proceeding, and they expressed a desire to adopt” her. While respondent contended “a guardianship or APPLA was in” C’s best interests, the court disagreed. “The trial court found that these options were not appropriate, and this was not an erroneous conclusion.”