Termination under § 19(b)(3)(c)(i); In re Frey; Children’s best interests; In re White; In re Moss Minors; Accuracy of a no-contest plea; MCR 3.971(A); MCR 3.971(D)(2); MCL 712A.2(b)(2); Criminality; People v. Tennyson; In re MU; Effect of agreeing with an issue in the trial court; Grant v. AAA MI/WIS, Inc. (On Remand)

Determining that § (c)(i) existed, that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and that her no-contest plea was properly accepted, the court affirmed the termination order. The court concluded that the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist. She “continued to use drugs throughout the case. She attended only 23 of 111 drug screens, and she tested positive for nonprescribed opioids in 11 of the 23 drug screens that she attended. Respondent also admitted to having an addiction to Adderall, and the caseworker believed that respondent may have been ‘shopping around’ for Adderall prescriptions. The caseworker testified that a doctor had informed her that he had stopped prescribing Adderall to respondent out of concern that she was abusing the medication.” She also tested positive for meth. A toxicologist testified at the termination hearing that meth “is rarely prescribed, and when it is it is usually prescribed as a medication known as Desoxyn. Respondent’s did not have a Desoxyn prescription. Although the positive drug screens could not distinguish between therapeutic or recreational drug levels of the drug for which she did have a prescription, there was evidence that respondent was abusing Adderall, that she had missed a significant number of her drug tests, and that she had tested positive for drugs for which she did not have a prescription.” Thus, the trial court properly found that “the drug use conditions continued and were unlikely to be rectified. Moreover, respondent never provided proof of a legal source of income to address her financial instability.”