Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (i), & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown Minors; Reasonable accommodations tailored to a respondent’s disability; Children’s best interests; In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson Minors; In re White; Social Security Disability (SSD)

The court held that the evidence established statutory grounds for terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights where it showed she would be unable to provide her children with proper care and custody and that they would be harmed if returned to her. It further concluded the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent “was diagnosed with bipolar depression, schizoaffective disorder, psychosis, and deliria, and received SSD income based on her mental illness.” In light of her disability and the DHHS’s awareness “of her mental illness, she was entitled to reasonable accommodations tailored to her disability in her service plan.” And the record showed the DHHS repeatedly tried to provide her services “based on her mental health needs, including supportive visitation, individual therapy, and mental health treatment specifically to address her specialized needs and diagnoses.” But she failed repeatedly “to engage with and benefit from these services or follow through with additional referrals.” Although she contended the DHHS did not accommodate her disability, she failed “to explain how the services provided were inadequate or how she would have fared better if” offered others. She asserted the trial court did not consider her commitment “to regaining custody of her children.” However, the court found no clear error by the trial court. Regardless of her “subjective level of commitment, the record shows that despite numerous and repeated referrals from petitioner, [she] missed the children’s medical appointments, was terminated from individual therapy, parenting classes, and supportive visitation, completed only eight of 42 required drug screens, attended only 14 of 54 visits with the children, had not seen [them] in-person in over eight months, and had not been taking her medication since” 5/22. As to the children’s best interests, respondent’s foster care worker testified that they had never lived with respondent, and because she had not seen them “in-person in over eight months, they were not bonded to her and had bonded with their foster parent instead.” The court found that this, together with the length of time they had been in care, respondent’s inability to give them stability and permanency, and her “failure to comply with her service plan,” supported the trial court’s best-interests determination. Affirmed.