Best interests of the children; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors; Relative placement; MCL 712A.19a(8)(a); In re Mason

Holding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to the children was in their best interests, the court affirmed the trial court’s termination order. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred because, when it determined that termination was in the children’s best interests, it did not consider that they were being placed with a relative. “In this case, the children were not being ‘cared for by relatives’ at the time termination proceedings were initiated; rather, the children were in foster care. Contrary to respondent’s apparent argument, the case of In re Mason . . . does not address the children’s anticipated placement with a relative. In that case, the children were already in the care of relatives when termination proceedings were initiated.” Respondent in this case “did not attempt to provide proper care and custody for the children by granting legal custody to relatives or by successfully placing her children with relatives before termination proceedings were initiated; rather, the children were in foster care.” Thus, her reliance on Mason was misplaced.