Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), & (j); Effect of a parent’s failure to participate in & benefit from a service plan; In re White; Child’s best interests

Holding that termination was warranted under §§ (b)(i), (c)(i), and (j), and that it was also in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. It concluded that the record contained “clear and convincing evidence from which the trial court reasonably could have found that the child was sexually abused and respondent was the perpetrator.” Further, even if the trial court had erred as to § (b)(i), it did not clearly err in determining §§ (c)(i) and (j) were also established. The record showed that “during the four years the child was a court ward, respondent could not obtain and maintain the stability and skills necessary to safely parent his special-needs child. Respondent would take one step forward, be granted additional privileges, and then engage in behavior that amounted to two steps backward.” While parenting classes was one service he completed, it was “clear that he did not benefit from” the classes. Among other things, when he was “granted unsupervised parenting time, he again physically abused the child.” In addition, he did not “adequately address his substance abuse issues, as he admitted to using marijuana every day and consuming alcohol to cope with the removal of his child. At least two witnesses testified that respondent frequently arrived at parenting time smelling of alcohol and behaving in a manner suggesting that he was under the influence.” The court noted that he “engaged in a wholesale failure to comply with the [trial] court’s order requiring weekly random drug and alcohol screens.” The evidence also showed that he “refused to participate fully in services intended to address his substance abuse issues.” Further, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding termination was in the child’s best interests. “Children require parents who can provide them with a safe, stable, and permanent home. This was particularly important for this child because of his special needs.” There was also evidence indicating he “did not want to return to respondent’s home.” The child was thriving in a residential facility, and, significantly, while his “future was uncertain, a preponderance of the evidence established that respondent’s home was not a viable placement option because the child would not be safe in” his care. Termination was the only way to ensure he would not be able to again harm the child.