Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), & (j); Anticipatory neglect doctrine; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Atchley; Children’s best interests; In re White

The court held that (1) the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-mother with her children, (2) §§ (c)(i) or (c)(ii) supported termination of her rights to four of the children, (3) § (j) supported termination as to a fifth child, and (4) termination was in their best interests. Thus, it affirmed the termination orders in these consolidated appeals. As to reunification efforts, the record belied her “claim that she was compliant with her treatment plan. DHHS offered” her many services, including affordable housing referrals, medication management, counseling, parenting and anger management classes, therapy services, supervised parenting time, and a psychological evaluation. But she often refused to participate “or was discharged from them after failing to appear for several appointments. She dismissed the recommendations contained in her psychological evaluation and repeatedly refused to accept responsibility for her actions.” As to statutory grounds for termination, with regard to ZCM, NJM, SLM, and JLT, the record showed “that, by the time of termination, respondent had not adequately addressed her mental health barriers. Moreover, her persistent refusal to accept any responsibility for her actions and that she repeatedly blamed others for her children’s removal over the almost two-year trial court proceedings supports the conclusion that she was unlikely to rectify her barriers within a reasonable time considering” their ages. Thus, termination was proper under § (c)(ii) for ZCM, NJM, and SLM, and § (c)(i) for JLT. As to VST, the court held that termination was proper under § (j) based on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. The record showed that “respondent neglected and abused her children both before and after they were removed from her care[.]” Given her treatment of the “other children and refusal to participate in services or comply with her service plan, the trial court did not err by finding that there was a reasonable likelihood that VST would be harmed if returned to” her care. Finally, her “effort to participate in her service plan” was not relevant in evaluating the children’s best interests, and she offered no other argument for why termination was not in their best interests.