Termination under §§ 19b(3)(g) & (j); Credibility; In re Fried; Effect of the existence of one statutory ground; In re Ellis; Children’s best interests; In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad Minors; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White

Holding that §§ (g) and (j) were established, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. It concluded that the DHHS offered “ample evidence” that she failed to provide the children (E and S) proper care and that they would be at risk of harm if returned to her home. There was evidence that S’s father (J) “posed a serious risk of harm to the children because of his severe and unresolved issues with substance abuse. Throughout” the proceedings, and even though there was “a safety plan precluding contact with” J, she continued a romantic relationship with him and lied about their contacts. While she testified in 2/19 that she finally ended their relationship, the DHHS “presented evidence that she was still engaged in a romantic relationship and seeing” J two months later. There was also testimony that she told her children to lie about both phone contacts and J’ s presence in her house. In addition, although an evaluator concluded that respondent “met the criteria for opioid dependence,” and respondent “admitted that her own substance-abuse issues ‘interfered with [her] . . . ability to properly supervise’” the children, she did not “adequately address such issues.” As to their best interests, while the children were bonded to her, they both had special needs and were in and out of placement twice during the proceedings. Further, despite S “ingesting dangerous drugs and suffering a significant burn, respondent failed to place the children’s interests above her own.” On appeal, she contended “that she ‘should have been given more time.’ However, the three years that this case remained ongoing, was as much as the children could afford.”