Best interests of the child; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re LaFrance; Effect of relative placement; In re Atchley

Holding that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. He did not challenge the trial court’s ruling as to the existence of statutory grounds for terminating his rights. Rather, he argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it found that termination was in the best interests of the child because he was unable to complete his parent-agency agreement due to his incarceration, and the child was in a relative-placement with her paternal aunt (G). “Given the amount of time respondent had before being incarcerated to comply with his parent-agency agreement, there is no evidence to support his contention that he would be compliant if given more time following his release from prison. This is compounded by the fact that [he] could only guess when he would be released.” The trial court found that even if he “was released from jail in 90 days, he still lacked suitable housing and a stable income.” Further, while a child’s placement with a relative weighs against termination, the trial court found G provided the child “with the permanency and stability that she needed and that respondent could not provide.” Respondent claimed to have phone calls with the child “while incarcerated, but the trial court did not find the calls to be enough to maintain contact with” the child. Instead, it found the child “did not know her father and was not bonded with him.” The court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred in these findings. Termination of respondent’s parental rights would allow [G] to move forward with adoption.”