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

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating both respondents-parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination orders. The trial court considered each child individually. As to respondent-mother, it found that terminating her rights was in their best interests because the bonds with her “were unhealthy and minimal, the children were not physically or emotionally safe in [her] care, [they] were doing much better in the care of their foster parents, and the children required permanence, stability, and guidance” that she was unable to provide. The trial court acknowledged that she “had housing and usually had employment,” but emphasized that she did not “benefit from the case service plan during the lengthy proceedings, and she refused to accept feedback or responsibility for her role in the children’s trauma.” In addition, it explained that she “tested positive for alcohol and cocaine in the weeks leading up to termination, failed to address her issues with domestic violence and poor parenting ability, and lied about her continued relationship with respondent-father.” Further, the children were doing well in their placements. Five of them had healthy “bonds with their foster parents, who wanted to provide” them with permanency, and the sixth child had a grandparent who might be interested in adopting him. As to the father, the trial court found that the children’s bond with him “was weak or nonexistent, [he] ‘showed no inclination to do anything as a parent,’ the children were doing much better with their foster parents, and [they] needed stability, safety, and permanency” that he was unable to provide. He never showed that “he had stable housing or employment, and he did not address his issues with domestic violence, substance abuse, and poor parenting skills—the same issues that initially led to the children’s removal.”