Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(ii); Failure to prevent sexual abuse; Reasonable likelihood of future harm; In re Gonzales/Martinez; Anticipatory neglect; In re Mota; Children’s best interests; Relative placement; In re Atchley; Permanency & stability; In re White

The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights under § (b)(ii), and that termination was in the children’s (JM and BH) best interests. The children were removed after allegations that the mother used meth and continued contact with JM’s father, whose parental rights had been terminated for sexually abusing JM. On appeal, the court first held that § (b)(ii) was established because “JM’s father sexually abused JM,” the mother knew of the abuse, and the record supported the trial court’s finding that she failed to prevent further risk. The mother allegedly took JM to see him, allowed FaceTime contact, stayed with him in a motel after removal, and was seen with him at BH’s sporting event. The trial court was entitled to “credit the contrary testimony” over the mother’s denials. The court further held that future harm was reasonably likely because the mother did not promptly sever the relationship, described the divorce as “forced,” and continued to emphasize that she could not control JM’s father’s actions. Relying on Gonzales/Martinez, the court reasoned that a parent’s decision to place a relationship with an abusive partner over the children’s needs can show the parent is likely to continue doing so, and under Mota, how a parent treats one child is “probative of how that parent may treat other children.” The court next held that the best-interest finding was not clearly erroneous. Although the mother identified a niece as a possible placement, the court reasoned that the niece “had not been approved as a placement,” and “the existence of a possible, unapproved relative placement” did not undermine the trial court’s finding. The court also held that termination served the children’s need for permanency and stability because they were doing well together in foster care, their needs were being met, and the trial court found they had “a safe and secure placement” with “consistent parenting.” Affirmed.