Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; Services; Failure to benefit from service plan; In re Smith; Children’s best interests; Stability

The court held that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) were satisfied, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The children were removed because respondents-parents’ mental health instability interfered with safe parenting. Although respondents initially improved enough to receive unsupervised weekend visits, their progress was not sustained. On appeal, the court first rejected respondents’ reasonable-efforts argument because the DHHS offered numerous services, including psychological evaluations, life-skills and parenting classes, budgeting assistance, food-stamp referrals, and in-home support. The court emphasized that the DHHS’s duty extends only to “efforts that are reasonable,” and respondents had a “commensurate responsibility” to participate in and benefit from services. The court next held that statutory grounds were established because respondents ended the case “where they began” and showed they could not sustain improvements. Although they cleaned the home briefly and removed weapons and chemicals, the children returned from visits “tired, hungry, and dirty,” the home again became cluttered, and respondents continued “inappropriate, bizarre, and inattentive behavior” during visits. The court reasoned that respondents participated in services but “failed to show that they benefited from services,” and under Smith, failure to benefit supported findings that they could not provide proper care and that the children would be harmed if returned. The court also held that the harm under § (j) included emotional harm because the children’s therapists testified they would be harmed by returning to an unstable environment. Finally, the court held that termination was in the children’s best interests because respondents lacked stable parenting ability, the children were thriving in care, all professionals supported termination, and the oldest child testified that he did not want to return because “[i]t hasn’t really changed.” Affirmed.