Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that the trial court did not err by terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights because the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist and termination was in the children’s best interests. The case arose from allegations of substance abuse, criminality, domestic violence, and medical neglect, including unexplained injuries to one child (RR) and failure to pursue testing for Hemophilia B despite family history. After adjudication, the DHHS provided services, but respondent attended only 25 of 150 drug screens, tested positive for meth in 21 of those, inconsistently attended visits, failed to participate in medical care, and presented allegedly falsified negative drug screens. On appeal, the court held that § (c)(i) was established because more than 182 days had elapsed and respondent had not achieved meaningful change, with her continued substance abuse, poor compliance, and failure to benefit from services showing no reasonable likelihood of rectification within a reasonable time. As to best interests, the court held that termination was supported by the children’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, their positive progress in placement with relatives willing to adopt, and respondent’s continued lack of parenting ability and refusal to take accountability. Affirmed.