Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Child’s best interests; Parent agency agreement (PAA); Guardian ad litem (GAL)

Concluding that § (c)(i) existed and that the trial court did not clearly err by holding that it was in the child's (HIRW) best interests to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights, the court affirmed. She asserted she had complied with her PAA, the trial “court failed to consider that her medication caused her issues prior to 2023, and the GAL mischaracterized facts.” It was “undisputed that more than 182 days have elapsed since the initial dispositional order in this case.” The initial dispositional order was entered on 3/15/22. The hearing to terminate her parental rights was held on 3/13/24, and 3/20/24. The order terminating her rights was entered on 4/19/24. The domestic violence and relationship between respondent and her then-boyfriend, C, “that led to the initial removal of HIRW continued to exist, and it was unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable amount of time as respondent maintained a relationship with [C] at every possible opportunity.” Respondent argued “that the trial court erred in finding statutory grounds to terminate her parental rights because she complied with her” PAA. However, respondent also admitted “that she had not complied with certain terms of the agreement that required her to address the impact of her relationship with [C], including: discontinue contact with non supportive partners that put herself and HIRW at risk of substantial harm and comply with the terms of her PPO against” C. Respondent argued “that she was no longer romantically involved with [C] but instead was embracing the principles of sober living of forgiveness and making amends and was trying to help him improve his life. Her reasoning for continuing to choose [C] over HIRW is irrelevant, however.” Respondent’s PAA “required that she not have contact with [C], but she continually violated that order as well as the PPOs that she sought out against him following domestic-violence incidents. Respondent gave no indication at trial that she was taking steps to remove [C] from her life. Though her relationship with [C] was discussed in respondent’s therapy, respondent did not appear to change how she interacted with him. Viewing respondent’s behavior in its totality, she had not benefited from her” PAA. She also argued “that her prescribed Lexapro negatively impacted her behavior prior to her [4/23] voluntary hospitalization and that the trial court failed to account for this. However, respondent was prescribed a new medication following her hospitalization and continued to involve herself in [C’s] life after her medication had changed, including obtaining a guardianship over him in” 5/23. In addition, on her 6/27/23 PPO application against C, “she listed an incident that occurred between them in” 5/23. Respondent also alleged “that the GAL made inaccurate factual statements that prejudiced” her. The “trial court did not mischaracterize any of these facts in its opinion terminating [her] parental rights.” Thus, it “did not clearly err in finding that the volatile relationship between respondent and [C] that led to the adjudication had not meaningfully changed and was unlikely to do so within a reasonable amount of time given that HIRW was 10 months old when first removed from respondent’s care but was three at the time of termination.”