Children’s best interests; Parent-child bond; Failure to benefit from parenting classes; Limited treatment plan compliance; Effect of relative placement

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the two children’s best interests. She asserted that she was “currently clean of substances and that there is a reasonable likelihood that she will remain so in the future.” But the court found this argument was “belied by the record. Respondent admitted to substance abuse while pregnant with [her younger child], who tested positive for codeine, methadone, morphine, fentanyl, and Tramadol at birth. Throughout the proceedings, respondent consistently refused to participate in her treatment plan. [She] did not submit to random drug screens or submit proof that she was engaged in substance-abuse therapy. Further, [she] was incarcerated at one point during these proceedings and had pending drug-related felony criminal charges.” As to her bond with the children, despite the presence of one with the older child, “respondent was unable to show throughout the proceedings that she had the ability to parent or address her own mental-health issues, let alone [the child’s] special needs.” As to the younger child, “the trial court acknowledged that respondent appeared to have ‘some’ bonding with [this child], but determined that this factor was outweighed by other considerations. [This child] had gastroenterological issues, requiring a special diet, and respondent did not always comply with those needs during parenting times, as evidenced by bringing inappropriate snacks. [She] did not attend [the child’s] medical appointments.” She also needed assistance changing the child’s diaper, and would ask for the older child’s help with the younger one. Further, she “had difficulty dividing her attention between both children and instead focused on” the older one. The trial court emphasized her “‘very limited’ compliance with her treatment plan. In addition to failing to participate in drug screens or mental-health services, [she] failed to provide proof of employment or a copy of” her apartment lease. The DHHS referred her “to services multiple times, but she repeatedly refused to participate. Meanwhile, [the children] were doing well in their placements and their needs were being met. [They] required permanency, stability, and finality, which respondent was unable or unwilling to provide, despite being given ample opportunities to do so.” Affirmed.