Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Medical neglect; Reasonable reunification efforts; Substance-abuse treatment; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that § (c)(i) supported termination, and that termination was in the youngest child’s best interests, but that remand was required for a new best-interest determination as to the oldest child. The case began after medical neglect of the youngest child was confirmed following hospitalization for weight concerns and a diagnosis of failure to thrive. On appeal, the court first held that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to address respondent-mother’s substance abuse because it referred her to two outpatient providers, she was discharged from both for “inconsistent participation,” and the caseworker testified that respondent refused inpatient treatment when offered. The court next held that § (c)(i) was established because respondent did not consistently engage in mental-health services, did not benefit from parenting classes, lacked “gainful, legal employment,” and continued to test positive for meth. Although the court acknowledged that the evidence did not necessarily support housing instability, that error was harmless because “there was more than sufficient evidence” that respondent failed to rectify other conditions leading to adjudication. As to best interests, the court held that termination was proper for the youngest child because his improved condition in foster care supported termination where respondent’s barriers remained unresolved, his medical needs would “require greater than ordinary amounts of attention,” and the trial court found he needed “a consistent parent.” But the court vacated the best-interest ruling as to the oldest child because the trial court did not expressly consider that child’s placement with her biological father, and a court’s failure to address relative placement makes “the factual record inadequate to make a best-interest determination.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court retained jurisdiction.