Termination under § 19b(3)(g); In re White; In re Schadler; In re Mason; In re Medina; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that § (g) existed and termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. She had the financial ability to provide proper care and custody of her children. The record reflected that she generally maintained employment during the pendency of the case. However, she failed to provide proper care and custody for her children. G “suffered severe, life-threatening physical abuse that likely occurred before, during, and after his stay with respondent’s mother in” 12/15. She also failed to provide proper care and custody of T. The DHHS removed T “from respondent’s care after multiple individuals reported that, with T present, respondent continued having contact with T’s father, who had a history of violence. Further, during an unannounced home visit, a caseworker found that respondent had left T in the care of a babysitter who did not know his name.” The record also indicated that she “failed to abide by safe sleep practices.” A caseworker observed T “sleeping on the couch close to a space heater that could have fallen on him.” Respondent argued “that she benefited from therapy because she realized why her relationships were dangerous to” her children. The record, however, reflected that she “failed to consistently participate in and benefit from services. She stopped attending her therapy which limited her progress.” The record reflected that the trial court found that during the pendency of the case, “respondent failed to be truthful about many things.” The record indicated that the “children were removed from respondent’s care and placed in the care of others. Respondent failed to attend all parenting time visits. Respondent also failed to show that she had fully addressed her history of being in abusive relationships.” The record further reflected that she failed to maintain stable housing. The record showed that the DHHS “presented sufficient evidence from which the trial court properly found that clear and convincing evidence established that respondent, although financially able to do so, failed to provide the children proper care and custody, and no reasonable expectation existed that respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.”