Termination under §§ 19b(3)(h) & (j); Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her only argument on appeal was that terminating her compliance with her case services plan was not in the children’s best interests. But the court noted that regardless of her compliance with the plan, she “testified that she would be incarcerated for carjacking for a minimum of seven years, that she was in no position to care for the children, and that none of the potential relative placements that she had identified were able to care for the children. Thus, although compliance with a case services plan can weigh against termination, respondent’s compliance in this case does not change the fact that she will be unable to provide any direct care for the children for a minimum of seven years and that, despite suggesting several potential relative placements, she is not able to provide them with proper care by assuring they are cared for by a suitable relative.” As to her assertion the trial court failed to adequately consider the children’s bond to her, she “testified at the termination hearing that she did not have a very strong bond with” one of the children (M) because M was separated from her “at a very early age.” The evidence of her bond with the other child (R) was that R “had asked about and sent letters to respondent. However, it had been over seven months since” R had seen her, and R told her therapist “she wanted her foster parents to adopt her. Thus,” the trial court did not clearly err in finding that their bond was diminishing. Given the evidence, the trial court’s findings as “to the bond between respondent and the children was adequate and was not clearly erroneous.” It also did not reversibly err in failing “to require a more thorough investigation into relative placements.” As to its consideration of “the children’s need for permanency and stability” the court noted that they were both “in a preadoptive foster home, were bonded with their foster parents, and were thriving.”