Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Domestic violence; In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch; Children’s best interests; In re Gonzales/Martinez; Due process; In re Brock; Use of videoconferencing technology to conduct the termination hearing; MCR 3.904(B); Administrative Order Nos. 2020-6 & 2020-19 (AOs 2020-6 & 2020-19)

The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights under § (c)(i), that it was in her children’s best interests, and that her due process rights were not violated by the trial court’s use of videoconferencing technology to conduct the termination hearing when AOs 2020-6 and 2020-19 were in effect. The conditions that led to the “adjudication were an unclean and unsafe home, substance abuse, lack of parenting skills, and domestic violence.” The trial court focused on respondent’s record as to “drug screens, her parenting ability, and domestic violence.” The court noted that there was “scant evidence” about the frequency or nature of the domestic violence, and “not even a hint or suggestion that respondent was a perpetrator. In light of Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch, domestic violence was not a proper basis for the” trial court to terminate her parental rights. However, it was undisputed that she “did not fully comply with her treatment plan’s drug screening requirements. In addition, although there was evidence in the court reports that respondent successfully completed supportive visitation classes and acted appropriately during in-person parenting time, there was no indication” she fully understood the children’s special needs “and how to accommodate them[.]” Further, her contact with them, “particularly in 2020, was inconsistent and did not evince a sensitivity to the children’s emotional needs or need for consistency.” Testimony from a DHHS worker indicated “it was very unlikely that respondent could make the major changes necessary to provide a safe and stable environment within a reasonable period of time. For these reasons,” the court upheld the trial court’s finding as to § (c)(i). As to the children’s best interests, while there was a strong parent-child bond, this was only one factor that had to be considered, “and all the other factors preponderated in favor of termination.” Finally, the court found that the trial court did not violate “MCR 3.904(B) as temporarily amended by the Supreme Court’s” AOs, and that its “decision to conduct the termination hearing via videoconferencing technology did not affect respondent’s substantial rights.” Affirmed.