Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Children’s best interests

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to the children (KW, SM, KM, and DF) under §§ (c)(i) and (j), and that termination was in their best interests, the court affirmed. There was clear and convincing evidence that DHHS “made reasonable efforts toward reunification. There was also clear and convincing evidence that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions that led to the adjudication would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s age. Respondent’s children had been in care for three years, respondent had moved six different times during the case, and still did not have safe and suitable housing.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err by finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (c)(i). While the trial court clearly erred by finding that § (g) was established by clear and convincing evidence, this error was “harmless because it is only necessary to establish one statutory ground for termination.” As to § (j), “the trial court did not clearly err by finding that there was a reasonable likelihood, based on respondent’s conduct or capacity, that the children would be harmed if they were returned to respondent’s care. There was clear and convincing evidence that respondent did not have an appropriate home for the children to live if they were returned to her care. She had moved many times during the case and sometimes lived in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. In addition, respondent had been living with a man whom [the foster care worker] had informed her was inappropriate to have around the children because of his criminal history.” Although she “agreed that her children could not live with him and she was not planning with him, she continued to live with him. There was also evidence that the children, particularly KW, were traumatized because of their prior experiences living with respondent, and the children were adamant about not wanting to be returned to her care.”