Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Child’s best interests; In re White

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (c)(i) was established and that termination was in the child’s (M) best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. She pled no contest to the allegations in the petition requesting that the trial court exercise jurisdiction over M, including drug use at the time of M’s birth and the birth of another child, and she admitted she had a mental breakdown. She “was provided with a treatment plan designed to address the conditions that brought” M into the DHHS’s “care. At the time of the termination hearing—16 months after respondent entered her plea—respondent had not rectified these conditions. [She] participated in the psychological evaluation, but she failed to participate afterward in any meaningful mental health treatment.” Further, she did not follow through with any of the DHHS’s “mental health referrals and continued to exhibit erratic behavior during her visits with” M. In addition, while she “minimally complied with the Substance Abuse Support Services referral by maintaining contact with the assigned worker once a month,” she only submitted to 5 drug screens over a 16-month period. She denied needing substance abuse treatment at the termination hearing, stating that while “she had been an addict years ago, she was now sober and not in need of treatment. Despite the evidence that she and [M] tested positive for cocaine at [M’s] birth—a fact that respondent denied—and that respondent tested positive for amphetamines after” an incident at a hotel, she “continued to minimize her drug use and need for substance abuse treatment. Respondent also minimized her fiancé’s drug use, explaining that he had suffered a death in the family, which caused a relapse for which he quickly sought help.” Given this evidence and her efforts “to minimize the myriad issues identified in the treatment plan,” the court agreed with the trial court that the conditions leading to M’s “adjudication continued to exist and were not reasonably likely to be rectified within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age.” Further, in light of “respondent’s lack of participation in the treatment plan, her failure to participate in efforts to ensure [M’s] well-being, and her lack of commitment to creating a bond with” M, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in M’s best interests.