Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (b)(ii); In re LaFrance; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts; In re White

The court held that §§ (b)(i) and (b)(ii) were met and termination served the children’s best interests. The children lived with respondent-mother and respondent-father at the paternal grandfather’s home when the father called emergency services after one infant stopped breathing. Hospital evaluations revealed extensive injuries to the twins consistent with nonaccidental trauma, including brain bleeding, rib and arm fractures in various stages of healing, malnutrition, and other serious conditions. The DHHS filed a petition seeking termination, and the children were removed. The twins’ ongoing medical needs required frequent specialist care and intensive therapies, while the children did not sustain further broken bones during nearly two years in foster care. The trial court terminated respondent-father’s parental rights under multiple subsections. On appeal, the court held that statutory grounds were proven because the record “overwhelmingly supports the conclusion” that two children suffered severe, repeated abuse, and the trial court could terminate under § (b)(i) if the father was the abuser or under § (b)(ii) if, as a primary caretaker, he failed to prevent the abuse, especially where respondents lacked any adequate explanation for the injuries and why many went unreported. The court also held that termination served the children’s best interests because the bond with the father was minimal due to incarceration and lack of contact since 12/21,and the children needed stability and permanency. The twins had extraordinary medical needs that the foster placements were meeting after training, and the record supported adoptive prospects, with the court emphasizing termination was “in all likelihood necessary to save their lives.” Affirmed.