Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Jurisdiction; In re BZ; Failure to appoint a lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL) for the children at the adjudicatory hearing; MCL 712A.17c(7); MCR 3.915(B)(2)(a); “Shall” & “shall not”; Roberts v. Mecosta Cnty. Gen. Hosp.; Alleged due process violation; In re Ferranti; Children’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that while the trial court clearly erred in not appointing a LGAL at the preliminary hearing, the error did not affect respondent-mother’s substantial rights or deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Further, although it erred in terminating both respondents’ parental rights under § (g), the error was harmless because §§ (c)(i) and (j) supported termination. Finally, termination was in the children’s best interests. As to the mother’s argument the trial court violated her due-process rights and failed to properly take jurisdiction because the children were not appointed a LGAL at the adjudicatory hearing, it was required to do so by MCL 712A.17c(7) and MCR 3.915(B)(2)(a). But not appointing an LGAL did not deprive it of jurisdiction, because the trial “court first takes jurisdiction before the duty to appoint arises. Second, at the preliminary hearing, respondents admitted to allegations in the petition, and these admissions allowed the trial court to take jurisdiction over the children. Respondent mother voluntarily and knowingly made these admissions.” Further, she did not explain how exactly a LGAL’s presence “would have resulted in a different outcome. The LGAL’s duty is to the child, MCL 712A.17d(1), so the LGAL’s role would have been to advocate on” the children’s behalf. The trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ rights under § (c)(i). The record supported its conclusion that they had not rectified the conditions leading to the adjudication. It found that their “home remained in an unsuitable condition for the children despite two years to remedy the problem.” It was still cluttered “and continued to smell of smoke, urine, and marijuana.” They also both admitted they had “been unemployed for at least two years.” This issue had still not been fully rectified as the time of termination as they “had not displayed the ability to obtain stable employment or provide stable income for the children.” In addition, the father’s “failure to treat his psychiatric issues, or make adequate efforts to improve his parenting skills,” supported the determination that those “issues would not be rectified in a reasonable time.” As to the children’s best interests, while they “had numerous physical and mental needs” they were doing well in their placement with their grandparents, who provided them “with necessities, and consistently cared for their medical needs.” Affirmed.