Termination under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(iii), (g), (j), & (k)(i); In re Beck; In re Moss Minors; In re Hudson; In re BZ; In re Miller; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re White; Whether the trial court’s findings were adequate on the subject of the children’s best interests; MCR 3.977(I)(1) & (3); Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Smith; In re Frey; In re Utrera; Michigan’s Probate Code (MCL 710.21 et seq.); In re Hicks/Brown Minors; In re Mason; In re TK; In re Fried; In re Rood; In re HRC

Holding that § (a)(ii) existed, termination was in the children’s best interests, and the trial court did not clearly err by finding the DHHS had made reasonable efforts at reunification, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. Without even taking into consideration all of the years that he was completely absent from the children’s lives and did not support them or seek custody, the court concluded that desertion occurred 91 days after the preliminary hearing on 5/22/18, or 91 days after he visited his daughter on 5/26/18. The court reached this determination because he chose not to further participate in the proceedings or seek custody of his children after 5/18 despite the DHHS’s repeated efforts to involve him in the process and planning. Even at the preliminary hearing, he did not ask to be given his children; rather, he requested that the trial court place them with his mother. Thus, desertion under § (a)(ii) was established by clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court did not commit clear error in so finding.