Children’s best interests; In re MJC; In re Olive/Metts

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The trial court determined that the factors of (1) respondents’ parenting abilities and (2) the children’s safety and well-being “weighed in favor of termination, noting respondents’ failure to participate in and benefit from their treatment plans.” The court concluded there was no error in this regard. The children came into care due to “domestic violence issues, substance abuse concerns, untreated mental health issues, and medical and educational neglect. Despite being offered” many services in this case and related to an “educational neglect petition, respondents did not meaningfully address the reasons the children came into care. In turn, respondent-mother’s mental health issues, respondents’ continued substance abuse, and their poor parenting skills impaired their ability to safely parent their children.” The record also supported the trial court’s finding that respondents and the children had a weak bond. It additionally “established that there were at least three domestic violence incidents involving respondents[,]” two of which occurred with the children present. Respondents ignored an order that they participate in and benefit from domestic violence counseling for much of the case, and then “attended a four-hour online domestic violence class that did not comport with DHHS’s requirements or the terms of their treatment plans.” The mother admitted they “probably required more domestic violence counseling. The record supported a finding that domestic violence remained a concern” here. Also weighing in favor of termination was that it “would give the children the opportunity to achieve the stability, permanence, and finality they deserved.” The record showed they “were doing well in their relative placement and that all their needs were being met. The caregivers ensured that” they received desperately needed dental care and helped two of the children obtain services “required to overcome years of educational neglect perpetrated by respondents.”