Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Moss Minors; Parent-child bond; In re White; In re Frey; Ability to parent; Need for permanency, stability, & finality; Parent agency agreement (PAA)

Holding that the trial court properly concluded termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The trial court’s best-interests analysis addressed the parent-child bond. The children loved the father and had a bond with him, but it was “weakened since the children had been placed into foster care for a significant period.” Also, the trial court noted that he had “missed 50 parenting times and sleeps during the parenting time.” Next, the trial court addressed his ability to parent. He “did not have adequate parenting skills and had made very little progress with the” PAA. He continued to have substance abuse issues throughout the case and had not shown any period of sobriety. Also, “despite the referrals for services that had been made, respondent failed to address the children’s behavioral issues.” The trial court further found the “children had a definite need for permanency, stability, and finality.” The trial court “stated that there was a clear advantage of the foster homes over respondent’s home, demonstrated by respondent’s inability, unwillingness, or refusal to comply with the case service plan. The foster parents were able to provide the children’s basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter, which respondent was not; respondent was still homeless.” The trial court found “that despite the children’s behavioral issues, which the foster homes were addressing, there was a distinct possibility for adoption.” Also, the trial court determined “that there was no indication that the children could be returned to respondent’s care within a reasonable amount of time considering that the case had been ongoing for ‘almost 20 months,’ and no progress had been made.”