Appointment of a juvenile guardian; MCL 712A.19a(9)(c); Whether a guardianship is in the children’s best interests; In re TK; Termination of jurisdiction without a hearing; MCL 712A.19a(12); MCR 3.979(C)(1)(a); Review hearing; MCR 3.975; MCR 3.979(C)(2)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a juvenile guardian for respondent-father’s children, and that the appointment was in the children’s best interests. In addition, although the trial court erred by terminating its jurisdiction without a hearing, the guardianship did not need to be set aside. However, remand was required to conduct the hearing. The trial court appointed the children’s paternal aunt as their juvenile guardian based primarily on respondent’s substance abuse issues. It then terminated its jurisdiction. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a juvenile guardian because it was not in the children’s best interests, and that they should have been returned to his care. “Given respondent’s extensive history of drug abuse and his failure to take accountability for past positive screens, the trial court admitted that it did not trust [his] ‘sobriety’ and surmised [he] had missed those drug screens because he would have tested positive for something.” In addition, the aunt was able to provide the children “a sense of permanency, finality, and stability” that respondent could not, and “was willing to continue to facilitate a relationship between the [] children and respondent while [they] were in her care.” It also rejected his claim that the guardianship should be set aside because the trial court terminated its jurisdiction without a hearing. However, because its failure to conduct the hearing was erroneous, it remanded “for the limited purpose of conducting a review hearing under MCR 3.975, at which point the trial court could properly terminate its jurisdiction.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.