Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g) & (j); In re White; Reasonable reunification efforts; Preparing & updating a parent-agency treatment plan (PATP); Accommodation of a respondent’s disability; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); In re Hicks/Brown; Parenting time; Children’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights under §§ (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g) and (j), or in finding that doing so was in her children’s best interests. It also held that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. Thus, it affirmed the termination orders. In her argument as to reunification efforts, she first asserted that the “DHHS did not properly prepare or update the PATP.” The court agreed that the DHHS did not comply with the statutory requirements. But it determined that “the error was harmless.” The 6/23 PATP “fully set forth what was required of respondent to remove the barriers to reunification. Although the plan did not include DHHS’s obligations, there is no question that DHHS referred [her] to a multitude of services.” She conceded this. She “acknowledged that she participated in therapy with at least two providers and attended parenting classes, supportive visitation, and multiple psychological and psychiatric evaluations.” In addition, the services accommodated her asserted disabilities. Thus, the court concluded the “DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification.” But the record showed “that respondent did not comply with many of her services and, in many respects, she failed to benefit from the services offered.” As a result, she could not “establish that she would have successfully attained reunification if a proper treatment plan had been prepared and regularly updated.” The court also found no merit in her contention that the DHHS did not make reasonable reunification efforts “because it failed to offer [her] consistent and meaningful parenting time.” As to statutory grounds for termination, over “182 days had elapsed since the initial dispositional orders, yet the conditions that led to the adjudication, and other conditions that arose thereafter, continued to exist. Respondent’s parenting skills had not improved and her mental health issues had not been adequately addressed. Further, the record clearly established that these conditions were unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time. [She] had more than two years to make meaningful changes in her life, but she was unwilling or unable to do so. There was no evidence that if” she was given more time, she would remove the reunification barriers. Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the best interests of each child.