Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); In re Williams; In re Dahms; Failure to follow a case service plan; In re R Smith; In re JK; Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Moss Minors; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re VanDalen

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) warranted termination, or that it was in the child’s best interests, the court in these consolidated cases affirmed the order terminating both respondents-parents’ parental rights. As to § (c)(i), the record showed that respondent-mother did not obtain a driver’s license “despite her reported plans to do so and respondents’ contention that they missed several required appointments because of a lack of transportation.” Thus, their ability to take the child to medical appointments continued to be impaired and there had “been no ‘meaningful change’ in this condition that led to adjudication.” They also “had a very poor record in complying with their case service plan; they missed numerous medical appointments for [the child] and, in most cases, failed to even call ahead to explain their absence.” They also stopped attending some services entirely, and were suspended from two programs due to their failure to appear. Their “failure to comply with the case service plan was not a recent development; the trial court noted it as far back” as the first dispositional hearing. Further, they “delayed for several months before they began participating in certain required services. Because respondents’ record in complying with the case service plan was poor and continued to be poor, there was no ‘meaningful change’ in these conditions that led to adjudication.” While they contended that because the foster parents took the child “to all of his medical appointments, the allegation of medical neglect had been rectified and could not support termination under” § (c)(i), the fact that “there was no actual medical neglect” after his removal did “not mean that the condition that led to adjudication” – their neglect in failing to take him to his medical appointments – “did not continue to exist.” They failed to address their transportation issues and missed several of his appointments after his removal. As to his best interests, the record showed that he had little to no bond with respondent-father and a caseworker testified that his bond with the mother was not as strong as his bond with the foster parents.