Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Children’s best interests; Jurisdiction; Distinguishing In re Mallett (Unpub)

Holding that § (c)(i) existed and termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and finding no plain error in the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them, the court affirmed. More “than 182 days had elapsed between the entry of the initial dispositional order in [5/21] and the date when the trial court ordered termination of respondent’s parental rights in [3/22]. At the outset of this case, respondent could not provide adequate housing for her children and she had substance-abuse issues.” The trial court found that she “failed to verify a legal source of income or any suitable housing by the time of termination, leaving petitioner unable to evaluate respondent’s progress in alleviating these barriers.” It also noted her “withdrawal from initial counseling and her subsequent failure to provide disclosures to petitioner. The trial court highlighted the significance of” her continued drug use. “Specifically—and even assuming that respondent’s positive results for amphetamines could be disregarded because of her purported, but not consistently verified, Adderall prescription—respondent tested positive for methamphetamines seven different times after being ordered to comply with the parenting plan.” Thus, based on her “drug use and failure to comply with the parenting plan, the trial court concluded that the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist with no reasonable likelihood of change in the foreseeable future given the children’s ages and respondent’s conduct throughout the case.”