Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(ii); In re Gonzales/Martinez; Children’s best interests; In re VanDalen; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Matters of trial strategy; Prejudice

The court held that (1) terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was proper under § (b)(ii), (2) it was in the children’s best interests, and (3) she was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Testimony was presented that “after CPS received a complaint that respondent was allowing” her boyfriend (A), who had “been adjudicated on three instances of sexually abusing other” children, to have contact with her children, the CPS investigator (T) “notified respondent of the concerns that DHHS had with [A’s] history of sexual abuse. In contradiction to respondent’s assertion on appeal, [T] testified that respondent affirmed that she was aware of [A’s] past and that respondent was notified that she would be held responsible if [A] were to harm the children. Despite these early warnings, respondent continued to allow [A] to be alone with the children. A month later, [T] and respondent created a written safety plan together that stated that [A] was not allowed to be alone with the children.” But just a few months after it was created, she allowed A “to get into bed with the children while she was not present.” While she purportedly reported one child’s “disclosure of sexual abuse immediately to law enforcement, the fact that she left her children alone with [A] in the first place in direct violation of the written safety plan demonstrated that [she] was either unable or unwilling to protect either of her children from potential abuse.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (b)(ii) was established. As to the children’s best interests, the court held that the evidence clearly showed their “future safety and well-being could no longer be reasonably assured in light of the fact that despite full knowledge of the danger posed to the children, respondent left them alone in their beds with” A. Finally, the court rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given T’s testimony, “even if trial counsel had presented testimony about respondent’s parenting abilities or her relationship with her children, a different result was not reasonably probable.” Affirmed.