Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); A parent’s responsibility to participate in the services that are offered; In re Frey; Best interests of the children; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that statutory grounds were met, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. The trial court terminated her rights based on her “deficient parenting skills, lack of permanent employment, and inability to respond to her children’s special mental and emotional needs.” It also found termination was in the children’s best interests because, although she showed them love, her lack of appropriate parenting skills had irreparably damaged the parent-child bond, and their “need for permanency and stability favored them remaining in their current foster homes.” On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination, noting many of the conditions that led to the adjudication remained, and while she participated in a number of offered services “and showed progress on parts of her treatment plan, she ‘failed to demonstrate sufficient compliance with or benefit from those services specifically targeted to address the primary basis for the adjudication in this matter[.]’” In addition, she “repeatedly failed to provide proof of employment and permanent housing.” And it appeared that her “invoking the pandemic is another effort to make excuses for lack of progress.” Overall, she did not “show significant progress related to her service plan, regardless of any effect that the pandemic had on that plan.” As such, § (c)(i) was met. The court found §§ (g) and (j) were also met. “Proper care of the children also required continued sobriety from respondent, which was tenuous at the time of termination.” And she failed to show an ability “to safely and appropriately parent her children and they remain at a serious risk of harm if returned to her care.” Finally, as to the children’s best interests, the court noted her visits with them “were chaotic from the beginning and even with extensive assistance,” there was no improvement. Further, although “she was sober at the time of termination and had obtained housing with the assistance of her mother and brother, she failed to demonstrate that she was capable of maintaining employment and paying for housing without the assistance of her family.” Meanwhile, the children were thriving in foster care.