Children’s best interests; In re White

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. While she contended “there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that she had not benefited from services,” the clinic evaluation and her foster care worker asserted that she had not, “and further noted that she often refused to take accountability for her actions. The trial court found this evidence credible, and” the court deferred to its credibility assessments. The record also belied her assertion “that visits ‘went well with no problems reported[.]’” The record reflected that she “was inappropriate at half of the 20 visits she attended—out of the 40 total offered.” And while there was evidence that she “had a bond with the children, they did not feel safe with her; they did, however, feel safe with their relative placement.” As to her claim that termination was premature, “the case had already been pending for 15 months with no demonstrable improvement from her.” In addition, even if she “voluntarily sought out additional services or did so to comply with her probation requirements, the record” showed that, as with “the DHHS-provided services, respondent failed to benefit from” them. Finally, the court found no merit in her relative placement argument. The “relative placement was against guardianship and wished to adopt the children.” The court concluded that “respondent’s history with CPS and neglect, failure to benefit from services, and refusal to accept responsibility for her actions, coupled with the fact that the children’s relative placement was able and willing to provide them with permanency, stability, and finality,” supported the trial court’s finding.