Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re White; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts; Doctrine of anticipatory neglect

The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of both respondents’ parental rights under § (c)(i), that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the orders terminating respondents’ parental rights. Over “182 days had elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order.” As to respondent-mother, one of the conditions leading to adjudication was her mental health. After a psychological evaluation it was recommended that she “participate in parenting coaching, have supportive visitation, and continue individual therapy.” There was testimony that the mother “did not successfully complete individual therapy.” She also failed to follow “the recommendations from the psychiatric evaluation including taking prescribed medication and she was not participating in services to address her mental health. There was no indication that [her] mental health was under control.” Due to her failure to follow the recommendations “or participate in individual therapy, [she] did not accomplish any meaningful change in her mental health and therefore her ability to care for the children.” Evidence also showed “that she failed to benefit from the parenting classes and improve her parenting ability.” As to respondent-father, one of the conditions leading to adjudication was substance abuse. While he asserted that this was under control, he “tested positive for fentanyl, heroin, THC, and alcohol. Despite receiving methadone treatment for more than a year, [his] substance-abuse issues were not under control.” Over two years after the case service plan was ordered, he “continued to engage in the same behavior and was still dependent on substances[.]” He also was still unable to financially support the children. As to the children’s best interests, “the evidence showed that the bond between [the] mother and the children was not healthy for” either child. Her parenting ability, visitation history, and their “need for permanency, stability, and finality” also weighed in favor of termination. The lack of a bond, his parenting ability, and his failure “to comply with the substance-abuse part of his case service plan” and to obtain a legal source of income, along with the children’s needs, weighed in favor of terminating the father’s rights.