Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re Simpson; Effect of relative placement

The court held that (1) the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, (2) terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was warranted under § (c)(i), and (3) terminating her rights was in the children’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s termination order. As to reunification efforts, the court noted that the “DHHS cannot accommodate a disability of which it is unaware[.]” Respondent failed to “specify her diagnosis, if any, and she failed to comply with the DHHS requirement to obtain a psychological evaluation.” While the record showed that she struggled “with substance abuse, she does not assert that she has opioid-use disorder or provide proof that she was diagnosed with opioid-use disorder or other mental health issues. Respondent does not argue that the services that were provided were somehow deficient or unreasonable. She objected to some and participated in others.” Rather, she simply asserted “that she needed ‘extra help’ to complete them. Respondent initially wanted and participated in outpatient substance-abuse treatment. However, inpatient substance-abuse treatment was recommended throughout the proceedings given the severity of her substance-abuse problem, and it would have helped [her] to make the most progress toward reunification. [She] did not make the commensurate reasonable effort to participate in” such therapy. She also failed to “consistently complete the 184 drug screens offered throughout this case, and of the 14” she did complete, “she often tested positive for a combination of cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.” As to a statutory ground for termination, one “of the conditions that led to adjudication was respondent’s drug use.” The last drug screen she completed, in 3/23, “was positive for fentanyl and cocaine. Thus, [her] substance-abuse issues that led to adjudication in 2019 continued to exist in 2023” and the court concluded there “was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would rectify her substance-abuse problems within a reasonable amount of time.” Finally, it was in her “children’s best interests to have a sober parent who can provide unsupervised care. By failing to show that she could remain sober at any point during the four years that this matter was pending, respondent has not proven that she could be that parent, and there was no likelihood that [they] could be returned to a safe, drug-free, stable home with [her] within the foreseeable future.”