Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); No reasonable likelihood that conditions leading to adjudication will be rectified; Reasonable likelihood of harm; Incarceration status; Child’s best interests; Ability to keep the child safe; Parent-child bond; Need for permanence, stability, & finality; Relative placement; Guardianship

Holding that §§ (c)(i) and (j) existed and that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s (TRP) best interests, the court affirmed. There “was clear and convincing evidence that 182 days elapsed since the issuance of the initial dispositional order, and [the father] failed to rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication.” Moreover, there was “evidence from which the trial court could conclude that the conditions that brought TRP into care would not be rectified within a reasonable time.” The court held that considering “that TRP had already been a court ward for 3½ years, expecting him to wait several more years for respondent to work on services would be unreasonable.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate his rights under § (c)(i). Also, considering “the totality of the record, there is clear and convincing evidence from which the court could conclude that TRP would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care after [he] was released from prison.” Given the “record, the trial court did not err when it found clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent’s parental rights under” § (j). The court found that it was “speculative to conclude that TRP would be safe in [his] care because they would be under the watchful eye of the paternal grandmother.” The record also showed that his “incarceration was not the sole reason, or even the main reason, that the [trial] court terminated his parental rights. Indeed, [it] stated that it was not terminating [his] parental rights because of his incarceration.” Based on the evidence, it “correctly found that that there existed clear and convincing evidence that respondent was given a treatment plan and, during the years TRP was in care, respondent had opportunity to participate in services but failed to do so.” In addition, “the trial court reasonably found that the ability to keep TRP safe was a factor that weighed in favor of terminating” his rights. It also disagreed “that the trial court improperly weighed the existence of a parent-child bond.” The court further concluded that the trial court “appropriately considered TRP’s need for permanence, stability, and finality and found that these factors weighed in favor of” termination. The trial court additionally “weighed several factors and then appropriately found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in TRP’s best interests despite the fact that he was placed with a relative.” Finally, it “did not err in declining to implement a guardianship.”