Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; Incarcerated respondent; In re Mason; Waiver of an argument; Child’s best interests; In re White

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that § (c)(i) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. It acknowledged that neither the DHHS “nor the county jail offered respondent any services or even visitation opportunities when she was incarcerated” for about eight months. But the record indicated the case worker met with her monthly “while she was in jail to review her case-service plan and discuss her goals after release.” And after her release, the DHHS tried to assist her with “classes and programs to address the issues that led to adjudication, such as mental-health concerns, domestic violence, parenting skills, and housing. Further, [it] acknowledged that because respondent was unable to receive services while incarcerated, it was essentially required to treat the reunification process as starting from the beginning upon her release.” While she contended that it “did not adequately help her address her housing situation, it” appeared that she received the help that the DHHS was able to provide to those in her circumstances. As to § (c)(i), it was “undisputed that the 182-day period was satisfied, even after respondent was released from jail[,]” and more importantly, the record showed “most of the conditions that led to the adjudication—housing, domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting skills—continued to exist at the time of the termination trial and were unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time.” Finally, as to the child’s best interests, while respondent showed some progress during the case by “completing some recommended classes and not testing positive for alcohol[,]” the focus was on the child. Respondent’s home with a boyfriend with whom she “had an extended history of domestic disputes and violence” was inappropriate for the child, “particularly when compared with his foster home,” where testimony indicated that he was “thriving” and his foster parent was interested in adopting him.