Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); Effect of an abusive partner; Comparing In re White & In re Dearmon; Failure to benefit from a case service plan; Best interests of the child; In re Gonzales/Martinez; In re Rippy

Holding that §§ (g) 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 toxic relationship with her abusive partner (the child’s father) and the fact she lied about the relationship. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that a statutory ground for termination was not met. It found this case was similar to White, where “the respondent had a history of inviting men with criminal backgrounds into her home and continued to do so during the case, which demonstrated that she did not benefit from her service plan.” Here, respondent’s “history of maintaining a relationship with her abusive partner continued throughout the case, which showed that she was unlikely to change this conduct in an effort to prevent domestic violence from occurring in her home with” the child. It also found this case was similar to Dearmon, because she “maintained contact with her abuser even after he was incarcerated, and also became impregnated by him again.” The court also rejected her claim that termination was not in the child’s best interests. The trial court found her “history of domestic violence and deception about her ongoing relationship with her abusive partner established” the child would not be safe in her care. It also found the child “became emotionally dysregulated and experienced diarrhea after parenting time visits with [respondent], and that his emotional and physical health improved when he did not have visits with” her. He also needed permanency and stability, which the foster family was providing.