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

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (j) supported terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights and that doing so was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. It concluded that it was clear from the record that the mother “minimized or denied the risk respondent-father presented to [the child] and [the] mother had a history of withholding information related to other adults with potential access to a child living in her home. Although there was testimony that contradicted the case manager’s testimony concerning [the child’s] contact with [the] father, the trial court was in a superior position to judge the credibility of the witnesses before it, and” the court did not find clear error in its decision to believe one over another. The court found the trial court did not clearly err in determining that at least one statutory ground for terminating the mother’s parental rights was “established by clear and convincing evidence.” In addition, it was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by holding that” terminating her rights was in the child’s best interests. There was evidence that she “actively interfered with the relationship between [the child] and her foster father. [The] mother’s CPS case manager testified that [the child] would come back from parenting time and tell his foster father that ‘Mom says you’re the devil’ and ‘Mom told me that I can’t love you. I can only love mom.’ The case manager also stated that [the] mother had falsely accused the foster father of abuse and neglect. This history makes it doubtful, to say the least, that [the] mother would work well with [the child’s] current medical providers and caregivers to ensure a smooth transition of care and to best manage [the child’s] special needs.” Further, she showed an unwillingness to provide the DHHS “with even the most basic information about a new relationship so that [it] could determine whether [the child] was at risk. Based on the record, a reasonable inference would be that [the] mother would be less able to manage [the child’s] special needs and would be unable or unwilling to put her own feelings aside and prioritize [the child’s] need for specialized support services.”