Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re Sanborn; Child’s best interests; In re White

Holding that § (j) was established and that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. It found the record clearly showed the child “has severe medical needs requiring life-long care and treatment.” A foster-care worker’s (H) “testimony indicated respondent neither understood the significance of [the child’s] needs, nor knew how to care for” them. The record was also “unclear as to how respondent would be able to finance and transport [the child] to his numerous medical appointments even if she were not incarcerated, considering [she] lacked employment and transportation before her incarceration. Finally, [her] parental rights to another child were previously terminated because of substance-use issues and physical neglect, for which [she] was offered services but failed to comply.” The court noted that she “continued to struggle with substance-use issues at the time of [the child’s] birth, and the record indicated she did not meaningfully participate in substance-use services until being incarcerated.” This evidence, taken together, established a reasonable likelihood that the child “would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care.” Thus, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction the trial court clearly erred” in its finding as to § (j). As to the child’s best interests, the “evidence of respondent’s substance-use struggles, periods of mental instability, and lack of employment or income before her incarceration” implicated her ability to effectively parent the child. Further, H testified that there was no bond between the child and respondent, and respondent would not be able to provide the child with stability and permanency “in a reasonable time. By contrast, [H’s] testimony, together with other evidence in the record,” indicated the child “was bonded with his foster parent, who met all of his medical needs and was willing to plan for him long term. Notably, when the trial court made its best-interest determination, [the child] was almost three years old and had lived with his foster parent for all but the first few months of his life.”