Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re White; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Frey; Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that § (c)(i) was established, that reasonable reunification efforts were made, and that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. The “182-day statutory period was satisfied.” Among the conditions listed in the petition were her “arrests, the child’s truancy, respondent’s mental health, respondent’s lack of employment, and respondent’s homelessness.” While the DHHS referred her “to a psychiatric evaluation, mental-health counseling, parenting mentorship, and Section 8 housing, respondent consistently refused to engage in those services and she actively dropped out of the mentorship program. Respondent even admitted that she stopped talking to her providers, she did not engage with her psychiatric assessment, and she remained unemployed.” The court concluded that while she “received housing days before the termination hearing, and she had started taking medication prescribed by her family physician, respondent’s barriers to reunification remained unchanged.” In light of her “inconsistent engagement with the services she was provided,” the court “was not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake” was made. As to the child’s best interests, her “well-being while in the care of her foster families, as contrasted to her well-being while in the care of respondent, demonstrated that termination and adoption were in her best interests.” She missed several days of school while she was in respondent’s care but “was doing well in school while in the care of the foster family. The child also completed psychological evaluations while with her foster family. Respondent’s lack of parenting ability, and her unwillingness to take consistent steps to demonstrate that there would be finality to her housing instability, mental-health issues, and unemployment,” showed that it was in the child’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights.