Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re VanDalen; In re Moss Minors; In re Foster; In re Williams; Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re White; In re Medina; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Fried; In re Mason; In re Rood; In re Frey; The Americans with Disabilities Act; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Terry

Holding that § (c)(i) existed, termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child-I’s best interests, and the DHHS made reasonable efforts towards reunification, the court affirmed. The DHHS submitted to the trial court a complaint and requested to place I in temporary custody just over one month after her birth. It “alleged that respondent used marijuana during her pregnancy and that [I] was born positive for marijuana.” Further, the pediatrician diagnosed I “with failure to thrive one month after her birth because she was not gaining the appropriate amount of weight. The pediatrician gave respondent a special bottle nipple to feed [I], but respondent threw it away because it was blue and [I] was a girl. The pediatrician instructed respondent to chart [I’s] feedings, yet respondent refused to do so.” Also, the DHHS “alleged that respondent was offered Maternal Infant Health and Early On services on multiple occasions throughout her pregnancy and after giving birth, but” she refused to accept a referral. Respondent had a long history of being involved in relationships with men who were registered sex offenders, and was also allowing her boyfriend, a registered sex offender, to do I’s night feedings. The court held that the “trial court record supported that, at the time of termination, a condition or conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist, despite the reasonable efforts of DHHS to reunify respondent and” I. Given these circumstances, it did not clearly err by holding “that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” I’s age, and that termination was proper under § (c)(i).