Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; Children’s best interests; In re White

Holding that § (c)(i) was established and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. Over 182 days elapsed between entry of the initial dispositional order and the termination hearing. “The petition alleged respondent neglected or refused to provide care and custody of the children, and the home or environment was an unfit place for” them to live. She “obtained housing for about eight months during the proceedings but was unable to maintain it for financial reasons[.]” The court found it significant that she “did not complete parenting classes despite multiple referrals in the three-year pendency of the case.” And while she completed a psychological evaluation, she “did not complete individual therapy as recommended. The necessity of” the classes and the therapy was reflected in her treatment of her older son, who was not at issue in this case. The DHHS asserted that she “was ‘inappropriate’ during parenting time with [him], got into loud verbal arguments with him, and tried to take his clothes away because ‘she bought them.’” Her treatment of that child was probative of how she may treat the two children involved here (M and S). “Evidence supported the conclusion that respondent took no responsibility for the children being in care and took virtually no steps to improve her parenting ability or address her mental health issues, despite” the time she had to do so. She did not show “that she can provide proper care and custody, maintain income, or maintain appropriate housing.” As to the children’s best interests, M’s “well-being in care, the advantage of stability and permanence at” the home where he was living and at school, and his placement’s willingness to adopt outweighed the parent-child bond and M’s relative placement, supporting a finding that termination was in M’s best interests. While there was a strong bond between S and respondent, and S was also placed with a relative, S’s “well-being in his preadoptive home, the advantages of that stable environment, and [S’s] preference for remaining there suggest termination was in” S’s best interests.