Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Atchley; Children’s best interests

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that (1) reasonable reunification efforts were made, (2) § (c)(i) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. She was offered mental-health and substance-abuse counseling, assistance with finding suitable housing and rehabilitation facilities, and supervised parenting time. But the record indicated that she was uncommunicative with the DHHS “and did not meaningfully participate in the reunification services offered until more than six months after the” children were removed from her care. She “then was denied access to a rehabilitation facility” due to lack of adequate insurance but did not accept the DHHS’s offer of help in obtaining Medicaid. Her only request for additional services was for housing resources, which the DHHS provided. As to § (c)(i), 182 or more days passed between the initial dispositional order and termination. The conditions that led to the adjudication were her “unsuitable housing, substance abuse, mental health, lack of resource management, and lack of parenting skills[.]” Those conditions generally continued throughout the case. While she completed a drug rehabilitation program, by the time of the termination hearing, she “had no housing or income” and these issues were unlikely “to be resolved until she was released from jail, at which point the children would have been in foster care for well over a year.” As to their best interests, she “was largely noncompliant with her case-service plan and had only been sober for a short time. It also was unlikely that [they] would be able to return to her care in the foreseeable future. The three oldest children had special needs and did not show a strong bond with respondent and, while the youngest child did” so, the trial court did not err in concluding that it “did not outweigh the factors” favoring termination. And the children “were in a preadoptive foster care placement where their needs were being met, which showed a clear advantage over respondent’s home environment.” Affirmed.