Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Personal protection order (PPO)

Holding that §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) were established, and that termination was in the child’s (G) best interests, the court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. G came into care due to physical and emotional abuse “by respondent. At the time of removal, respondent also struggled with his own mental health problems which affected his ability to properly care for” G. Evidence showed that he had issues with “ongoing anger and volatility. He mistreated two different therapists.” He threatened to kill one therapist, blaming her for the fact G did not sleep the night before, and “for failing to fix” G. He also displayed “threatening and violent behavior against his new therapist” only a few months later. That therapist obtained a PPO against him. In addition, he exhibited “similar threatening and violent behavior toward” G’s foster care worker during separate home visits, causing “her to conclude that it was no longer safe for her to be in respondent’s home. Testimonies of witnesses established respondent’s unwillingness and inability to change the conditions that led to” G’s removal. The court concluded that he did not “address his problematic behavior that led to” G’s removal, and that the trial court did not err in finding § (c)(i) supported termination. Further, “clear and convincing evidence established respondent’s failure to provide” G with proper care. He “continued to act abusively and emotionally unstable toward [G] and others around him, including, being physically rough and emotionally abusive to [G] in front of therapists and caseworkers.” He contended the trial court erred in terminating his “rights because he did everything DHHS asked by attending counseling and participating in visitation appropriately. Mere participation in his service plan, however, does not suffice.” As to § (j), the record indicated that G suffered “physical and emotional injury at the hands of respondent and his girlfriend. Caseworkers and therapists personally observed such behavior.” Finally, the record supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in G’s best interests. In addition to the apparent lack of a bond between them, the evidence indicated “that respondent lacked parenting ability and did not place the child’s interests before his own.”