Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re Trejo Minors; Child’s best interests; In re Gonzales/Martinez; In re White; Claim that the DHHS obtained termination of children’s guardianships to create a statutory ground for jurisdiction over them; Due process; In re Beck; A parent’s significant interest in the companionship, care, custody, & management of their children; In re JK; Substantive due process; Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Twp.; Distinguishing In re B & J; Assertion of jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1); Without proper custody or guardianship defined; MCL 712A.2(b)(1)(C)

The court concluded that the termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to three of her children could not stand where the record did not refute or confirm her claim that the DHHS violated her due process rights by seeking termination of their guardianship to manufacture “the circumstances that enabled the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over” them. However, it affirmed termination of her parental rights to her fourth child under § (j), holding that the trial court did not err in finding that it was in the child’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed as to the youngest child, reversed as to the three older children, and remanded for further proceedings as to those children. Respondent argued that the DHHS obtained termination of their guardianship in order to create a statutory ground for jurisdiction over them for the purpose of enabling the trial court to terminate her parental rights. The court agreed that her substantive due process rights may have been violated. “The DHHS did not adequately develop the record” to explain the guardianship’s termination. It did not offer the probate court file from the guardianship case into evidence. While respondent petitioned the probate court to terminate or modify the guardianship, it denied her motion. “At a minimum, the timing of the guardianship termination is suspicious as the respondent’s motion had already been denied and the guardianship termination occurred only five days after the circuit court initially refused to authorize the DHHS’s supplemental petition requesting jurisdiction and termination” at the initial disposition. Based on the record, the court could not “resolve the important procedural and substantive issues” respondent raised on appeal. The trial court asserted jurisdiction under MCR 712A.2(b)(1). However, there was no evidence that the children “lacked proper custody and guardianship with their guardian.” The DHHS on remand may augment the record with the probate court’s record of the guardianship proceeding “to prove that independent grounds existed to terminate the guardianship.” But it cannot support its termination petition and the trial “court may not take jurisdiction and terminate respondent’s parental rights by contriving the means to reach that result.”