Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re White; In re Ellis; In re Kaczkowski; Children’s best interests; Right to counsel; MCL 712A.17c; Attorney-client privilege; Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co.

The court held that § (j) existed, termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, any right to counsel error did not warrant reversal, and there was no attorney-client privilege violation. In 12/19, she started “living with a man who had recently been in prison for firearms charges. The foster-care worker assigned to respondent’s case ran a background check on the man, learned of his criminal background, and informed” her of it in 1/20. Yet, she was still living with the man as of the 3/4/20 termination hearing. The worker testified that the man “would not pass a background check for being appropriate for being around the children.” Like the respondents in White and Kaczkowski, “respondent knew about the criminal background of the man, but decided to live with him all the same. This living situation was itself evidence of a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if they were returned to” her home. It also served as evidence that she was not complying with her case-service plan. The “worker testified that living with this man was a violation of respondent’s case-service plan, as respondent was required to obtain appropriate housing, refrain from having unapproved people in her home at night, and avoid associating with known criminals.” And before termination was initiated, she “failed to comply with terms of her service plan such as refraining from having alcohol and drugs in her home, submitting to drug screens, staying in contact with her foster care worker, and working to improve her parenting skills.” Affirmed.