Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), & (j); Failure to comply with a case service plan (CSP); In re White; Best interests of the child

Holding that §§ (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j) were met, and that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her rights were terminated on the basis of her substance abuse, mental health challenges, periodic homelessness, and her failure to get the child autism-related services. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that a statutory ground for termination was not met. Although the trial court erred by finding § (g) was met, “this error was harmless because alternate statutory grounds for termination were established under” §§ (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j). As to § (c)(i), it noted the challenges that plagued respondent “remained unresolved throughout the proceedings and lasted for well over the statutorily prescribed 182 days.” As to § (c)(ii), it found her “lack of transportation and failure to take advantage of resources designed to assist her with transportation issues negatively impacted her ability to care for” the child by ensuring she “regularly attended her daily appointments. [Respondent’s] transportation issues, viewed in a vacuum, may not suffice to support a finding that termination was proper under” § (c)(ii), but the fact they “directly impacted her ability to parent [the child], namely by preventing her from getting [her] to autism-related services in a consistent manner, suggests that statutory grounds” existed under § (c)(ii). As to § (j), the record indicated respondent “failed to successfully complete substance abuse treatment and drug screens, test negative for illicit substances, obtain safe and stable housing, and maintain employment, which were all conditions of her CSP. She has not demonstrated that she can provide safety and stability to [the child] moving forward, nor has she shown that [the child] would not continue to be in danger of abuse or neglect if returned to” her care. As to the child’s best interests, the “evidence supported the trial court’s finding that [the child’s] special needs created a heightened need for stability and permanency to ensure her continued development.” In addition, the record showed respondent “lacked emotional control, lacked the stable housing and employment necessary to provide [the child] with stability, did not understand her role in the neglect and abuse case, and did not fully understand why [the child] was removed from her care.” Further, while it was “true that the trial court acknowledged some progress toward rectifying the barriers to reunification, the evidence demonstrated that the conditions which caused” the child to come within its jurisdiction still existed at the time of the termination hearing. Finally, its finding that the child did not have a significant bond with respondent “was supported by testimony from a foster care caseworker, who observed” her parenting time with the child.