Termination under §§ 19b(3)(h), (i), & (j); Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Schadler; In re White; Effect of relative placement; MCL 712A.19a(6)(a); In re Mason

Holding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s (O) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. She did not challenge the statutory grounds, only whether termination was in O’s best interests. She contended that the trial court erred in light of her strong bond with O and her plan for him to stay with a relative while respondent was incarcerated. The trial court noted that O “was at a point in his development where bonding was critical and at the time of termination, he had spent more time in foster care than he had with respondent.” He went into care when he was five months old “and was in care for approximately nine months at the time of termination.” Although the court did not question that there was a parent-child bond “during his first five months of life, there was no interaction from that point forward.” Thus, it could not find that the trial court erred in determining that O “lacked a significant bond with respondent and was instead bonded to his foster family. [His] foster family was willing to adopt him, and meet his needs including special medical needs[.]” In addition, they were “willing to maintain the connections [he] had with his biological family. These facts supported” that termination was in his best interests. Respondent also argued that his potential placement with his older sister “should have weighed more heavily against termination.” But the court noted that relative placement is only one factor, and found that it was not dispositive here. O “was initially placed with a maternal uncle, but was removed because of personal and financial reasons on the uncle’s part.” At the time of his removal, the DHHS “considered his sister, but she was not yet eligible to take care of [him] as she did not have a job or adequate housing. In the meantime, [he] became bonded to his foster family.” The court appreciated the effort his “sister went through to gain housing and income. However, the determination of the best interests of a child ‘focus[es] on the child rather than the parent.’” It concluded that the trial court did not err in finding that O’s “need for permanency and stability outweighed relative placement in this case.”