Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); In re Sanborn; Child’s best interests; In re Atchley; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; Due process; In re Walters

The court held that §§ (c)(i) and (j) were met, termination served the child’s best interests, and the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. The DHHS removed the child after she disclosed sexual abuse by respondent-mother’s boyfriend, placed her briefly with respondent-father, and then removed her after learning the father’s CSC III conviction involved sexual abuse of young foster sisters and after the child disclosed being locked in a room and “whoop[ed].” On appeal, the court held that § (c)(i) was satisfied because the father showed no “meaningful change in the conditions” driving jurisdiction, including stopping counseling after four sessions, reengaging only after termination was sought, failing to complete safety planning until late, and continuing to be alone with children despite the safety-plan premise. It also held that § (j) was proven because the record showed a “reasonable likelihood” of emotional harm if the child returned, highlighted by “angry outbursts,” becoming “physically aggressive” after visits, and improvement once parenting time was suspended. The court next found that termination served the child’s best interests because she needed permanency and “a clear, stable, and nurturing environment,” was doing well in a preadoptive placement, and adoption provided “finality” that a guardianship could not. It also held that the DHHS made reasonable efforts and did not deny due process, emphasizing the father’s “commensurate responsibility . . . to participate,” while acknowledging the travel-funding problem was “very troubling” and a “close call,” and warning that “[a]ny harm” from an inability to afford visits would be “laid squarely at the feet of the DHHS.” Affirmed.