Reasonable reunification efforts; Child’s best interests

Concluding that (1) “the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify” respondent-mother and her child, KDG, and that (2) it did not err by finding that termination was in KDG’s best interests, the court affirmed. Specifically, she alleged “that the DHHS did not make such efforts after the [2/24] emergency removal until the termination hearing in” 5/24. The record did not support her claim. She “continued to receive services after KDG’s emergency removal. The DHHS created and updated a service plan for” her. She “was given referrals and scheduled appointments for outpatient therapy for her substance abuse and mental health issues. She received a referral for drug screening. She participated in parenting classes, and the DHHS provided her with biweekly parenting time.” The record showed that she “stopped participating in these services. Respondent missed 16 drug screens . . . and did not attend any therapy sessions after KDG’s emergency removal.” Also, her “caseworker was unable to verify respondent’s attendance at parenting classes. [She] was employed and possessed a vehicle and valid driver’s license. [She] does not explain what additional services the DHHS could have offered that would have altered the results of the termination hearing.” The record showed that she “was continuously provided with services, even after the goal was changed to adoption, yet she failed to avail herself of them. Therefore, the DHHS made reasonable efforts to provide services aimed at reunification, and respondent failed in her responsibility to participate in and benefit from them.”