Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests; Permanency & stability

Holding that § (c)(i) existed and termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The only questions were “whether the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist and whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. One of the conditions that led to the adjudication was the lack of suitable housing.” As of 5/21, this remained “an issue. After being evicted about a year before the termination hearing, respondent had been living in motels, and during the five months leading up to the termination hearing, respondent had lived in two different motels and had stayed with a family friend.” The foster-care worker, when assessing the prior motel home, determined that “it was otherwise safe, but it was not suitable because there was inadequate room for the children.” Another condition leading to the adjudication was the mother’s mental-health issues. At the time of the termination hearing, she “had not been participating in her mental-health treatment.” Further, considering her “inability to rectify these conditions during the extraordinary length of time the cases had been open (five years, four years, and two years), there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would be able to rectify the conditions within a reasonable time given the ages of the children.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that § (c)(i) was proven by clear and convincing evidence. As to the children’s best interests, the court agreed with the trial court that they “had waited long enough and needed stability and permanency.”