Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests; In re White; Relative placement; In re Atchley; Guardianship

The court held that the trial court did not err by terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to SDJ and SLJ and respondent-mother’s parental rights to those children and TLU, because the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist and termination was in the children’s best interests. The case began after police found the father lethargic in a running truck and the mother unresponsive upstairs while the six-year-old twins were in the home in their underwear, cooking for themselves, missing school, and exposed to drug paraphernalia. After jurisdiction was assumed, the DHHS offered substance-abuse treatment, drug screens, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, supportive visitation, and requirements related to income, housing, and contact with caseworkers. But both parents continued to miss screens, test positive, and inconsistently attend parenting time. On appeal, the court held that the conditions of adjudication persisted because respondents’ “substance-abuse issues continued throughout the pendency of the case[,]” the father failed to acknowledge a substance-abuse problem, and the mother’s apparent progress did not overcome her repeated history of relapse after prior reunifications. The court further held that there was “not a reasonable probability that the conditions could be cured in a reasonable time considering the tender ages of the children.” As to best interests, the court held that the children’s need for “safety, stability, and permanence” outweighed the relative placement. The court explained that the great-aunt was willing to adopt the twins, they were thriving in her care, TLU (who was in his father’s care) did not want to return to the mother, and guardianship was not appropriate because it would not provide permanence and would require a placement change. Affirmed.