Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Child’s best interests

The court concluded that: (1) § (c)(i) existed, (2) the trial court did not plainly err when it found “that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to promote reunification consistent with the ADA[,]” and (3) the trial court did not clearly err by determining that termination served the child, MM’s, best interests. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. The conditions pertaining to the mother “at the time of adjudication include[d] her inability to recognize and care for MM’s needs and her participation in an unsafe relationship despite a history of domestic violence.” The court held that “‘the totality of the evidence’ amply supported that [the mother] ‘had not accomplished any meaningful change’ in the conditions that led to the [trial] court assuming jurisdiction over MM.” For example, she “felt that MM ‘would be fine if he were home with her’ and that he would not ‘need these services if he were home with her,’ despite extensive testimony from the service providers otherwise.” Moreover, the trial court noted that the mother “essentially ‘left the door open’ to her boyfriend because a provider saw an image of him appear on respondent-mother’s phone during a session and that ‘she would have cut him off’ had she ‘benefitted from . . . domestic violence counseling that domestic violence is harmful, not just to the victim, but it’s harmful to the child.’” Also, § (c)(i) required the trial court to find that the “mother would be unable to rectify the conditions within a reasonable time.” She eventually participated in services but not until 2/24, “approximately nine months after the trial court issued the initial order of disposition.” MM’s case manager testified that there were no “services that would be relevant in a reasonable amount of time” considering that MM had been in placement since his birth and that services had lasted ‘well over a year’ by the date of trial.” Moreover, the record supported that her “boyfriend attempted to contact her during one of MM’s sessions despite repeated recommendations from her providers to eliminate contact with him, indicating that, even if she was afforded more time with services, she likely was not going to benefit from it.”