Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Children’s best interests; Effect of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts

Holding that § (j) was established by clear and convincing evidence, and that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. The DHHS “became involved with respondent after several allegations of substance abuse, physical abuse, and unsafe home conditions.” He first began using meth “in 2018, at which time he, in his own words, ‘binged until something happened’ four months later. [He] then got clean but relapsed” and later pled guilty to delivering or manufacturing meth. He was sentenced to three years’ felony probation. By 5/24, he “was using ‘daily’ until his children were removed from his care that July. [He] was ordered to comply with a service plan that included random drug screens and substance abuse counseling.” But from July to September, when he was again charged with delivering or manufacturing meth, he “consistently either failed to appear for” the screens or tested positive for meth. The court acknowledged that he made “significant progress in addressing his substance abuse issues” after that arrest, but noted this by itself did “not undermine the reasonable likelihood, based on respondent’s past conduct, that his children will be harmed if they are returned to his custody and care.” Two of them (CN and KN1) “repeatedly expressed that they do not want to have any contact with” him, and he “acknowledged saying things to CN that ‘no parent should say . . . to a child.’” The children have struggled with anger and dental issues, and one has twice attempted suicide. As to their best interests, the “trial court expressly considered each child’s age, their respective relative placement, and the possibility of adoption.” It found that CN and KN1 would be over legal age, or close to it, “by the time respondent completed his criminal sentence. [It] found it significant that KN2 and RN could not be placed together because each child had trauma and behavioral issues that required individualized attention.” It emphasized that they “were improving in their individual relative placements and were finally addressing their issues.” While relative placement “weighs against termination, a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial” court’s finding that termination was in their best interests.