Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), & (j); Harmless error; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re White

While the court concluded the trial court erred in finding that § (c)(ii) was established, it held that the error was harmless because §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. The court further held that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s termination orders. The court noted that “neither the referee nor the trial court made any effort to explain what other conditions existed in this case, nor does the record independently reflect any other conditions existing at the time of termination apart from those which led to the adjudication and” thus, were covered by § (c)(i). The termination orders were entered over two years after the initial disposition “and clear and convincing evidence established that the conditions leading to the adjudication, namely respondent’s unresolved mental health issues, lack of suitable housing, and violent relationship with the father, all continued to exist at the time of termination.” As to § (g), she failed “to consistently engage with her parenting plan and complete reunification services.” She missed nearly half her scheduled parenting time visits. After the birth of her younger child, “respondent became overwhelmed during visits and would often focus solely on one of the children.” As to § (j), her “inadequate housing created a clear risk of harm if the children were returned to her care. That, in conjunction with her longstanding domestic violence issues with the father, who also lived in the home, and her significant and consistently untreated mental health issues,” supported the trial court’s finding on this factor. Turning to the children’s best interests, while the record showed she completed parenting classes, her housing remained inadequate, and her inconsistent visitation worsened as the case went on. The record also indicated she “failed to consistently take her medication and suffered from ongoing mental health issues. Further, multiple caseworkers disputed” her alleged bond with the children. The court also found that their “medical issues and specialized needs raised additional concerns” about her ability to take proper care of them. In addition, they had “lived for some time and thrived in their current foster care placement, and that family has expressed a willingness to adopt and permanently care for them.”