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

Holding that §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) existed and termination of respondents-parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The “trial court did not err in finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that [respondent-mother’s] barriers to reunification would be rectified within a reasonable time, and” thus, termination was proper under § (c)(i). The record evidence showed that “more than 182 days elapsed between the issuance of the initial dispositional order and the termination of mother’s parental rights.” The record also clearly showed that “the conditions which brought the children within the court’s jurisdiction, such as mother’s substance abuse, were not rectified. Because mother chose to avoid participating in the majority of her weekly drug screenings, a record of her alleged progress is limited in this regard.” The court noted that she “had not acknowledged the severity of her addiction and the impact that the disease has had on her and her children’s lives. Mother repeatedly denied or justified her addiction to her caseworkers and the trial court, testifying that she did not need assistance with substance abuse therapy.” To the extent she argued she came into substantial compliance with her PAA “after the supplemental permanent custody petition was filed, she is mistaken. In fact, at no point in almost three years did mother come into ‘substantial’ compliance with the agreement, despite the trial court providing several opportunities to comply.” While the court acknowledged that she “completed the parenting classes, psychological evaluation, domestic violence and substance abuse therapy, the record otherwise establishes mother’s lack of benefit or appreciation of these services.” Although she “completed her domestic violence therapy, her therapist reported remaining concerns because mother continued to reside with her abuser, father, who did not complete his portion of therapy.” The court held that the evidence supporting the termination of her parental rights under § (c)(i) also supported termination under §§ (g) and (j). And the record included “indisputable evidence that [respondent-father’s] addiction was just as severe as mothers. That fact, coupled with the evidence of domestic violence in the home between mother and father, surmounts the clear and convincing evidence required to establish grounds for termination.”