Finding grounds for termination based on respondents’ nolo contendere pleas; In re Hudson; Due process claims based on delays in the proceedings; Plain error review; Prejudice; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Atchley; Child’s best interests; In re White; In re Simpson; Effect of the fact a visiting judge presided over the best interests hearing

The court held that respondents-parents were not entitled to relief on their challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support grounds for termination, and that respondent-father failed to show prejudice as to his due process claim based on case delays. It further concluded that the “DHHS provided respondents with services tailored to facilitate reunification, but [they] failed to make sufficient and timely progress.” Finally, the record supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interests, and the court found no plain error due to a visiting judge presiding over the best-interests hearing. The record showed the trial court found multiple statutory grounds for termination, “relying on respondents’ nolo contendere pleas . . . .” By entering a plea to a petition’s allegations, a “respondent waives the right to later challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination, unless there is a claim that the admissions were not made knowingly, voluntarily, or understandingly.” The court noted that respondents did not assert “there were irregularities in the plea proceedings or that their admissions were not knowingly, understanding, and voluntarily made.” As to his due process argument, the father contended “that delays in child-protective proceedings are inherently prejudicial.” But the court found that the delays here afforded him “several opportunities that worked to his benefit.” As to reunification efforts, “the principal barrier to reunification was respondents’ longstanding substance abuse.” The record showed the “DHHS undertook significant and ongoing efforts to assist” them in overcoming it. The “DHHS provided multiple referrals for substance abuse assessments, counseling, inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, and regular drug screenings. Respondents were repeatedly encouraged to seek and participate in inpatient treatment but continued to struggle with substance use throughout the proceedings.” As to the child’s best interests, the record showed that the parent-child relationship was not “healthy or secure[,]” the child was thriving in her foster mother’s care, and needed a secure and permanent home, but respondents continued to be unable to meet her needs.