Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), & (j); Children’s best interests; Reasonable reunification efforts; Notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 USC § 1901 et seq) & the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) (MCL 712B.1 et seq); § 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1); In re Morris

The court affirmed the trial court’s order as to the substantive issues raised by respondents-parents on appeal. But it conditionally reversed the trial court’s termination order and remanded for the limited purpose of ICWA and MIFPA notice compliance. The court held that considering “respondent-mother’s extensive history, there was no credible evidence that she would be in a position to parent her children anytime soon.” Thus, the trial court did not err when it terminated her parental rights under §§ (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). Based on her “unresolved substance abuse issues, the children’s tenuous bond with respondents, the children’s clear bond with the maternal grandmother, the advantages of the grandmother’s home over respondent’s home, the possibility of adoption, the grandmother’s reluctance to enter into a guardianship because of her strained relationship with respondents, and the children’s needs for permanence, stability, and finality,” the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. As to respondent-father, the court found no merit to his claims that the DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children. However, while neither respondent raised the issue on appeal, the DHHS correctly acknowledged “that it and the trial court failed to comply with the notice provisions of the” ICWA and the MIFPA, which were triggered because the father informed the DHHS he had Native American heritage and the DHHS informed the trial court of this information.