Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Child’s best interests; In re White; Effect of relative placement; In re Atchley; Focus on the child; In re Moss; Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP)

Holding that clear and convincing evidence supported terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights under § (c)(i), and that doing so was in the child’s (AAHP) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. The case manager noted at the termination hearing that AAHP had been in DHHS custody “for 999 days. The case manager explained respondent was diagnosed with bipolar I disorder but contested her diagnosis. Respondent believed she could manage her mental-health issues on her own and never remained compliant with her medications, despite the recommendations of multiple psychological evaluations. [She] was voluntarily and involuntarily hospitalized multiple times during this case. There was sufficient evidence establishing [she] was not compliant with her therapy or medication requirements.” In addition to failing to rectify the issues that led to adjudication, she “expressed her belief she did not need mental-health treatment multiple times, demonstrating the reasons leading to adjudication would continue to exist.” Further, she “struggled to maintain stable housing and employment.” As to the child’s best interests, while “respondent’s psychological evaluator testified respondent could, with time and treatment, eventually become a fit parent, [she] demonstrated she was disinterested in her mental-health care.” The court noted that “psychological evaluations could not provide the time frame it would take for [her] to become fit. AAHP made it clear from early in this case he desired permanency and stability. [His] therapist and foster parent testified respondent’s instability caused AAHP to worry and caused [him] to become the caretaker in the relationship. Best-interest proceedings focus on the child.” The court concluded that there “was sufficient testimony establishing AAHP desired permanency, and respondent was unable to provide him that while AAHP’s adoptive family did.” And while respondent asserted “she was not provided adequate services to comply with her PATP[,]” the court determined that she “was given ample time to comply with the PATP before DHHS filed the supplemental petition seeking termination.”