Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Child’s best interest; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to have respondent appear at the adjudication trial remotely; Failure to exclude a video from being admitted; Failure to seek a mistrial

The court concluded that evidence showed respondent-mother “egregiously abused the child, and her unwillingness to take serious responsibility for her actions demonstrated that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest.” Further, she did not show “that her counsel was ineffective because her counsel did request her remote participation at the trial, the father’s testimony provided proper foundation for the admission of the video, and any discussion of [her] alleged nonparticipation in petitioner’s recommendations did not prejudice respondent given the overwhelming evidence of abuse.” The court noted that the “child was removed from her care after petitioner received a video that showed respondent holding the child’s head underwater in a bathtub.” As to § (b)(i), the “video depicted respondent holding the child’s head underwater on more than one occasion, and this constituted direct evidence of respondent abusing the child.” Further, the evidence showed “that respondent would often text the father and admit that she was abusing the child.” The trial court noted that she “failed to acknowledge the severity of her conduct, which indicates that the child would likely be harmed if returned to her care, and respondent did not engage in any recommendation to help her understand and rectify the danger she posed to the child’s well-being.” Affirmed.