Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests

Concluding that § (c)(i) existed and that the trial court did not err by finding termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. As to § (c)(i), it was “undisputed that more than 182 days elapsed since the initial dispositional order was entered. Moreover, the conditions leading to adjudication included the deplorable conditions in the house and [his] domestic violence.” The record reflected “that the conditions had not been rectified at the time of the termination hearing. Respondent had obtained housing, but it was unfurnished and he lacked sufficient income to support the children. [He] did not have food or other necessities for the children. He was closed out of a program aimed to help him with housing issues for noncompliance.” Further, although respondent “completed an anger management class, he reported that he still had desires to fight people and was not taking his prescribed medication. Moreover, although additional anger management classes were recommended after his release from incarceration, the record reflects that he took himself off of the list.” Given this record, the court was “not left with ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,’ because ‘the totality of the evidence amply’ supports respondent ‘had not accomplished any meaningful change’ in the conditions that led to adjudication.” The record also supported that “he would be unable to rectify this issue within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.” The children “had been in care for over a year when respondent’s parental rights were terminated and he had not demonstrated improvement. Instead, he removed himself from an anger management class, continued to want to fight people, and was terminated from services for noncompliance.” Given his “lack of participation in important parts of the reunification plan and his lack of benefit from the services that he did participate in, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that respondent would be unable to rectify the condition in a reasonable time considering the ages of his children.” As to their best interests, they were bonded with the father. However, “both children were bonded with the foster parents, who were willing and able to provide for their needs and to give them stability and permanency.”