Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Reasonable reunification efforts; Child’s best interests

Holding that (1) § (j) existed, (2) DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunite respondent-father with the child-EY, and (3) termination of his parental rights was in EY’s best interests, the court affirmed. As to § (j), the court noted that during the lower court proceedings, respondent “was charged with three different criminal offenses and spent approximately five months in jail. While incarceration alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights, the circumstances involving at least one of [his] charges occurred while he was intoxicated. Respondent struggled with alcohol abuse throughout this proceeding and was diagnosed with alcohol-use disorder.” He also did not “benefit from his service plan, which included substance-abuse counseling, and continued to use alcohol.” Although respondent “claied to be sober while incarcerated, his ability to attain sobriety while incarcerated is not necessarily indicative of his ability to maintain sobriety outside of that controlled setting. [He] also failed to obtain and maintain suitable housing.” Moreover, the court noted that “he failed to complete domestic-violence counseling and failed to act appropriately during some visits with the child.” As to reasonable reunification efforts, the record showed he “failed to benefit from the services because substance abuse continued to be a concern, he struggled to provide age-appropriate care for EY, and he did not obtain housing.” Respondent argued “that his caseworkers should have provided him with more assistance, but he fail[ed] to indicate the additional services that petitioner should have provided and how such services would have assisted him in remedying his barriers to reunification. It [was] unclear whether the caseworkers confirmed that respondent could not participate in services while incarcerated.” However, the court noted that “the lower-court proceedings occurred over approximately two years, and respondent was incarcerated for only about five months of that time, leaving ample time for him to participate in services while not incarcerated. He nevertheless did not substantially comply with his service plan when he was not incarcerated. Accordingly, respondent has failed to establish plain error affecting his substantial rights.”