Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Williams; Children’s best interests; In re White; Effect of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors

While the court held that clear and convincing evidence established that termination was warranted under § (c)(i), it concluded that remand was required due to the trial court’s failure to consider the fact that the children were placed with a relative. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling that a statutory ground for termination existed but vacated the finding that termination was in the children’s best interests and remanded for further fact-finding. As to § (c)(i), over 182 days had elapsed since the initial dispositional order was issued related to respondent-mother, and she “did not accomplish any meaningful change in the conditions that led to adjudication. The children were removed from respondent’s care in 2019 primarily because of her physical abuse of the children. Respondent was convicted of third-degree child abuse twice, and the second conviction was related to abuse that occurred less than two weeks after respondent had regained custody of the children.” The caseworker testified that one child “stated that he was afraid that respondent would ‘beat him up’ after she was released from prison if he did not lie about the abuse as she instructed him to.” Two of the children informed “the caseworker that they were afraid of respondent.” The court also determined the record supported “the trial court’s finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would rectify the conditions within a reasonable time.” While she emphasized her participation in and completion of all the services that DHHS provided her, “a respondent’s ‘mere participation is not the same as overcoming the barriers in place.’” The court noted that the caseworker testified that even though respondent completed the offered services, she showed no benefits from them “because she continued to drink alcohol and physically abuse her children.” In light of her history, “the caseworker did not believe that respondent would benefit from additional services if given more time, and the trial court agreed.” However, as to the children’s best interests, nothing in the record indicated the trial court considered the fact that they were placed with their great grandmother at the time of termination. The “trial court must consider this placement” in assessing the children’s best interests. The court retained jurisdiction.