Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Failure to accomplish any meaningful change in the conditions that led to adjudication; In re Williams; Best interests of the children; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White; Relative placement; In re Mason

The court held that § (c)(i) was met and that termination was in the children’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. The court rejected his argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. It found that “182 or more days had elapsed since the issuance of the initial dispositional order” as to respondent, and that he “failed to rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication despite being provided with services that were aimed at facilitating reunification.” The court noted he “lacked commitment throughout the proceedings, was unable to demonstrate and maintain sobriety, and refused to communicate with DHHS throughout the entire case.” In addition, at the time of termination, “the children had been out of [his] care for nearly a year.” Further, multiple DHHS workers testified that “a variety of accommodations were offered to respondent to overcome any transportation or scheduling issues he may have had, but [he] remained noncommunicative and uninvolved.” Given his history, “the caseworker did not believe that respondent would participate in services if given additional time.” The court also rejected his claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Given his “issues with substance abuse and domestic violence, his incarceration, the children’s young ages and need for permanency, the fact that they were doing well in their foster placements, and the likelihood of adoption,” the trial court did not err by finding that it was in their best interests to terminate his rights.