Termination under § 19b(3)(f); Child’s best interests

Concluding that § (f) existed and “the trial court did not err by finding that it was in AIM’s best interests to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights,” the court affirmed. It noted that the “Legislature clearly did not intend to give incarcerated parents with limited earning ability the right to abandon their children. When viewed through this lens, the requirement that incarcerated parents assist with supporting their children suggests that the requirement to provide ‘substantial and regular support’ must be assessed relative to the parent’s means.” Here, the court concluded that “there was evidence that respondent did obtain employment while incarcerated and earned money by taking classes. However, he spent the money on perks for himself, such as commissary purchases and text messages, rather than putting anything toward AIM.” The evidence also showed the father “failed to regularly or substantially visit, contact, or communicate with AIM, despite having the means to do so. Respondent could not recall the last time he tried calling AIM, and this alone shows he did not maintain regular or substantial contact with AIM. At best, respondent sent a few cards through the mail, which petitioners [AIM’s guardians] denied receiving. Respondent could have [had them] get in touch with AIM, could have sent more mail to AIM, and could have made an effort to arrange a visit with AIM at the prison. Respondent knew how to contact petitioners and knew where they lived, but he failed or neglected to communicate with AIM without good cause. There was no evidence that [they] prevented respondent from contacting AIM.”