Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Effect of a respondent’s drug use; Children’s best interests; Whether individualized best-interest determinations were necessary; In re White

Holding that § (c)(i) supported termination and that the trial court did not clearly err in jointly addressing the best interests of both children, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. As to § (c)(i), the record supported the trial court’s findings that she “failed to rectify her medical neglect of the children, her substance abuse, and her mental-health issues[.]” The final day of the trial was over 19 months after the initial disposition order. The children (JR-2 and ZR) and a third child were “born THC positive at birth. ZR also tested positive for oxymorphone, noroxymorphone, amphetamines, and” meth. It was reported that when CPS went to inform respondent “of the ex parte removal order, there was concern that [she] was under the influence of substances ‘based on [her] demeanor.’ ZR was found in the home on the floor of a closet with several injuries.” After respondent completed a psychological evaluation, she “was diagnosed with ‘stimulant use disorder, cannabis use disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD,’ and the doctor stated that she would not recommend” respondent as a custodial parent. When she was later scheduled for a substance-abuse evaluation, she “incorrectly stated that she had no need for substance-abuse services. Overall, the record” showed that her “drug use was connected to the abuse and neglect of her children and presented an articulable risk of harm to them since their birth.” This, together “with the continuing medical neglect of the children and her mental health issues that she has been unable to consistently address,” supported termination under § (c)(i). Further, individualized best-interest determinations were not required here because the children’s “best interests are aligned.” They both required a level of parenting that respondent “could not provide due to her drug use combined with her mental health issues[.]” They both had been in foster homes for about “two years, and it was in their best interest to terminate” her rights given their need for finality, permanency, and stability.