Children’s best interests; Relative placement

Holding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s (ML, MH, and MM) best interests, the court affirmed. As an initial matter, she argued that the trial court failed to consider the children’s relative placements. Although she was “correct that the trial court must consider relative placement and that it weighs against termination,” her argument was not supported by the record. “The trial court explicitly considered the relative placements of ML and MM with their maternal grandmother, and MH was not in relative placement with her father because parents do not qualify as relatives.” Turning to the remainder of the best-interests analysis, the record supported the trial court’s determination. “Respondent had almost four years to complete her service plan, but she failed to do so. Respondent claimed that she no longer had a substance-abuse problem, but the [DHHS] was unable to verify these claims because respondent failed to complete her required drug screens. Respondent’s attendance with therapy and parenting classes was also so poor throughout the proceedings that she was rereferred to them at least 21 times.” Despite repeated referrals, the only service she “appeared to participate in consistently was therapy, which her therapist stated respondent did not benefit from. Additionally, respondent missed about half of her visits with the children and had not seen them in person since” 11/20. Although she “had a bond with the children, that bond was outweighed by her failure to participate in or benefit from her service plan despite almost four years to do so.” Given the length of the case, “the foster care worker’s testimony that respondent was no more capable of caring for the children at the time of the hearing than when ML and MH were removed from her care in 2017 is particularly compelling. Respondent had an extensive amount of time to show that she could care for the children, but she failed to do so.” Her claim that she needed more time to show she could care for the children was "unconvincing given that she demonstrated little progress throughout the long history of this case.” Instead, given the length of the case, “the children need permanency and stability. Respondent’s lack of progress with her service plan outweighs her bond with the children and the relative placements of ML and MM.”