Termination of parental rights; § (c)(i) (continuing conditions); Domestic violence; Substance abuse; Mental health; Housing; Parenting skills; Best interests; Foster care; Permanency

The court held that § (c)(i) supported termination of both parents’ rights and that termination was in the child’s (SMR) best interests. The case began after respondent-mother brought the ill child to respondent-father’s tent on a 37-degree night, the parents argued, and police found SMR outside in snow without shoes. On appeal, the court held that § (c)(i) supported termination as to the mother because, although she obtained housing, the remaining adjudication conditions continued: substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, and parenting concerns. The court emphasized her “49 non-compliant tests,” minimal progress in substance-abuse services, guarded participation in therapy, continued contact with the father despite no-contact orders, and 8/25 domestic-violence arrest, showing she had “‘made little, if any, progress’” and “lack[ed] insight.” The court next held that § (c)(i) supported termination as to the father because he had not rectified housing, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, or mental-health barriers. He had 39 noncompliant tests, appeared in court after drinking, was jailed for alcohol issues, ignored recommendations for treatment, violated no-contact orders, and lacked “‘stable housing by any stretch of the imagination.’” The court rejected his claim that more time was warranted because “‘[t]he mere possibility’” of a “radical change” did not establish a reasonable likelihood of rectification within a reasonable time. The court also held that termination was in SMR’s best interests. As to both parents, SMR entered care after being “left outside in the middle of winter” during a domestic-violence altercation, was thriving in foster care, and needed permanence rather than remaining “in the limbo” created by the parents’ lack of progress. Affirmed.