Children’s best interests; In re Jones; In re Schadler; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Failure to benefit from a service plan; In re White; Doctrine of anticipatory neglect; In re LaFrance Minors; Effect of relative placement; In re Mason; Parent/agency plan (PAP)

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination was in the children’s best interests, despite their placement with relatives, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. She did not challenge the trial court’s findings as to the existence of a statutory ground for termination, but rather argued that it was not in the children’s best interests because she made significant progress on her PAP and due to her bond with them. While six children were involved in the case, she contended that the termination decision was especially erroneous as to the oldest child (JDH) and the youngest (JDSH). The court disagreed. Although she was generally compliant with her services and completed those she was enrolled in, the completion of services was not dispositive. “Even after years of services and counseling, the evidence established that respondent continued to struggle managing all six children at once, and on at least two occasions, even when there were only one or two children in her care, the children were injured or abused. She left one of the children at home alone, and while respondent was able to maintain housing for a period of time, it took her many, many years and the absence of her children to support and care for in order for her to progress at all.” Before they were removed, they lived “in squalor, with their basic cleanliness needs not being met.” Further, at least one child was being tested for a learning disability and several “were in therapy and/or needed to be in therapy. These issues would require substantial attention and time and respondent” had shown she had difficulty parenting all of them at once even before these issues. “The evidence established that termination was in the children’s best interests.” While the evidence supported her assertion that she had a bond with JDH, this bond did not outweigh the other evidence that it was “in JDH’s best interest to be removed from respondent.” The child had a great need for finality, permanency, and stability. As to JDSH, the doctrine of anticipatory neglect applied, and there was no reason to believe that the same issues that had persisted as to “respondent’s parenting ability with her other five children would discontinue and not impact JDSH.” Further, this child could potentially be placed in her father’s care in the future.