Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (c)(ii); Children’s best interests; In re Moss; The DHHS’s failure to file an appellate brief

The court held that while the trial court erred in terminating respondent-father’s parental rights under § (c)(ii), the record supported its ruling under § (c)(i). Further, it did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. As an initial matter, it expressed its “disappointment in this case, as in others,” that the DHHS failed to file an appellate brief. Turning to respondent’s challenge to the statutory grounds for termination, “the operative supplemental petition did not request termination under” § (c)(ii). Thus, terminating his rights under this provision did not ensure compliance with his due process rights, given “that he lacked sufficient notice to rectify the conditions. But” only one ground had to be established and § (c)(i) supported termination. “Domestic-violence issues, substance abuse, financial instability, and homelessness were the issues that led to respondent’s adjudication. He had not obtained ‘independent housing’ at the time of the trial and had moved in with his new girlfriend, but had secured employment. While his employment was a positive development, DHHS and the [trial] court were concerned with his living conditions because his girlfriend had a history of violence towards her children and [he] remained indifferent to her background.” As to substance abuse, a DHHS caseworker testified that, while “he had been ‘testing clean’ since [3/25], he was not engaging with a ‘positive support system, the rehab prevention plan,’ and that she was concerned he ‘has not shown a plan to maintain his sobriety long term or what he’s going to do if he was to relapse.’” As to the best interests issue, the court concluded that “the trial court properly focused on the children’s interests rather than respondent’s interests.” Although the record showed that he loved them and wanted to have a healthy relationship with them, two witnesses testified that his “parenting time negatively affected” them. The infant mental-health specialist also “testified that respondent ‘just lacks the capacity to kind of create that structured environment that the kids need . . . .’” The record also showed that “the children presented great improvement during parenting-time suspension and then regressed and displayed severe physical and emotional reactions upon resumption.”