Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Atchley; Children’s best interests; In re MJC; In re Simpson

In this appeal involving two respondents-fathers (Martin and Hunt) and respondent-mother, the court held that (1) reasonable reunification efforts were made as to Martin, (2) termination of both Martin’s and Hunt’s parental rights was proper under § (c)(i), and (3) termination of all three respondents’ parental rights was in their children’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the termination orders. As to Martin’s reunification efforts argument, early in the proceedings, his three children “disclosed that they were subjected to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect while in” his and the mother’s care. They also disclosed that “Martin was either the perpetrator of that abuse or had failed to protect them from that abuse by others. [They] were thereafter provided with extensive mental health services, including trauma assessments, psychiatric services, and trauma therapy. These assessments and services revealed that all three children had significant trauma from their time in” their parents’ care. They “eventually refused to attend any parenting times.” The court found that it was “clear that DHHS continually reviewed, updated, and revised [] Martin’s case service plan and made referrals to the necessary services to ensure that [he] had a meaningful opportunity to participate in parenting time with his children.” He failed to explain how “DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to facilitate parenting time, or what more DHHS could have reasonably done in that regard. And indeed, the children’s therapists made clear that forcing the children to attend parenting time would have been detrimental to their mental health and well-being.” The court also held that the evidence supported terminating both fathers’ parental rights under § (c)(i). The “totality of the record before the trial court supported its conclusion that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that neither [] Martin nor [] Hunt had ‘accomplished meaningful change in the conditions that led to adjudication’ and that there was no reasonable likelihood that either of them would rectify those conditions within a reasonable time given the children’s ages.” Finally, the court rejected respondents’ challenges to the trial court’s best-interest findings. It concluded the record reflected “that the trial court properly weighed all the evidence available to it at the time that it made its” determination, and there was no clear error in its findings.