Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; Admission of evidence; Hearsay; In re CR; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to hearsay evidence; Prejudice; Child’s best interests

The court held that the trial court did not plainly err in finding the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and that respondent-father was not entitled to relief based on his evidentiary claims. Further, (1) he could not establish prejudice as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) terminating his parental rights was proper under § (c)(i), and (3) doing so was in the child’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent’s rights. While he “was not specifically provided with domestic violence counseling or classes during the proceedings,” the case-service notes supported that he “initially refused domestic violence services because he had completed them in the past. Later, when [he] was agreeable to receiving” them, the DHHS repeatedly tried to enroll him in these services. In addition, he “was provided with individual counseling, which addressed (1) domestic violence; (2) emotional stability; (3) problem solving; and (4) providing a stable environment for the minor child. Respondent was also provided with one-on-one parent skills training with a parenting coach, which were geared toward appropriate discipline of children and regulating emotions. [He] failed to benefit despite the parenting coach’s service being ‘above and beyond’ what was usually provided. Importantly, in 2020, respondent completed a domestic violence treatment program in relation to a domestic violence conviction. He clearly did not benefit, and there is no indication [he] would have fared better if DHHS had offered other services or additional services.” As to his claim about inadmissible hearsay, although he denied he slapped another of his children (his daughter) in the face, as alleged in a 2/23 police report, he “admitted he physically abused his daughter more than one year after [she] entered care and while he was participating in services.” As a result, “legally admissible evidence—i.e., respondent’s own testimony—supports the abuse occurred. Because ‘the mere existence of hearsay at the termination hearing does not warrant reversal,’” he was not entitled to relief. As to § (c)(i), over 182 days passed between entry of the initial dispositional order and entry of the termination order. His lack of stable housing was the condition that led to the adjudication. The court held that the totality of the evidence supported that he “‘had not accomplished any meaningful change’ in” this condition, and that he would not be able to rectify it “within a reasonable time considering the” child’s age.