Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (c)(ii); Child’s best interests

Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding grounds to terminate respondents-parents’ parental rights under §§ (c)(i) and (c)(ii), and that termination was in the child’s (GW) best interests, the court affirmed. “Respondent-mother is the biological mother of GW, and respondent-father is GW’s legal father.” The conditions that led to removal and adjudication were primarily their substance abuse issues. “GW had been born with addictions to several drugs, and each respondent had drug issues, past and pending legal issues involving drug possession, and outstanding arrest warrants. Respondents were required to participate in and show benefit from substance abuse treatment and were required to submit to random drug screens.” But at the termination hearing “approximately 20 months after GW was removed, the evidence showed that substance abuse was still a pervasive issue.” The mother was terminated from drug court, and the “father failed to enter drug court despite the opportunity to do so. Both respondents failed to complete any random drug tests, which were supposed to occur approximately once per week. Their missed tests were considered positive tests. When respondents did submit to drug tests, they tested positive for the same drugs that were identified as a problem at the initial adjudication.” GW’s paternal aunt testified that, during visitations, respondents had often come to her house “drunk or high.” Further, while the mother completed a residential treatment program in 9/20, “she immediately relapsed. Similarly, although at the time of the termination hearing both respondents were attending BioMed, they had continued to test positive for drugs, and the foster care worker had been unable to obtain documentation from Bio-Med despite sending numerous requests.” Finally, the father failed to appear for the termination hearing, and the “mother testified that, if she were tested on that day, she was unsure if she would test positive for drugs because she had used drugs approximately one week prior. Therefore, despite numerous hearings and an ample opportunity to do so, respondents failed to address and rectify their substance abuse issues. These issues remained throughout the case proceedings, and, for the services that were completed, respondents showed no benefit.” The court held that the “trial court did not improperly focus on past conduct, as respondents contend; it carefully evaluated the entire record and evidence produced at the hearing.” Affirmed.