Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (g); In re JK; Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Schadler

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ (c)(i) and (g) supported termination and that it was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights. It noted as an initial matter that she failed to challenge the trial court’s finding as to § (c)(i) and thus, this ground alone was sufficient to support termination here. It further concluded that even if she had done so, the trial court did not clearly err in terminating her rights based on § (c)(i). “The conditions that led to the adjudication involved medical neglect, improper supervision, prior history with CPS, and substance abuse.” The DHHS offered evidence that those conditions “continued to exist for several months, and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s very young ages.” There was evidence that respondent did not “complete and benefit from individual therapy, a substance abuse assessment, a parent partner or parent coach, and infant mental health services.” She also did not maintain a legal income, or “submit to more than 90 of over 100 required random drug screens despite knowing that missed screens were considered positive screens.” While she did complete psychological and psychiatric evaluations, “she failed to benefit from them. Respondent also failed to visit the children on 81 out of 142 scheduled parenting time visits.” As to § (g), the DHHS’s initial intervention here “was warranted because respondent maintained an unsafe and neglectful household for her children” – i.e., she did not provide them with proper care and custody. “To address these concerns, between 2018 and 2020, respondent received numerous referrals for individual therapy and substance abuse therapy, but she was dismissed from all but the last individual therapy referral for failure to follow through.” She testified that she failed to do so “because she had ‘so much stuff to do.’” As to the children’s best interests, she also had a "history of domestic violence; respondent’s partner, with whom she was living, allegedly brandished a gun at her and shot at the tires of” her car. The court found there was little evidence that maintaining her “parental rights would be in the children’s best interests, given her inability or unwillingness to display sufficient parenting skills and maintain a safe, stable household environment.”