Termination under the Adoption Code; Credibility of witnesses; MCR 2.613(C); Woodington v Shokoohi; Paternity; MCL 710.37(1)(a); Qualification as a “do something” father; MCL 710.39(2); Effect of a custodial relationship

Holding that the trial court was in a superior position to resolve this credibility contest and declining to interfere with the trial court’s factual findings, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissals of petitioners’ petitions under MCL 710.39(2) of the Michigan Adoption Code. Respondent-mother placed her three-year-old twins in a prospective adoptive home and petitioned along with the prospective adoptive parents (petitioners) to terminate the rights of the children’s biological father. Respondent-father fought the petitions and the parties provided widely divergent evidence of his level of involvement with his children. The trial court assessed the evidence and weighed the credibility of the witnesses before determining that the father had a custodial relationship with the children and had provided substantial and regular support and care for them. On appeal, the court rejected petitioners’ argument that the trial court erred by dismissing their adoption petitions. “Ultimately, the question in this case is not father’s quality as a person or whether he could have done more as a father. The question is whether father had a sufficient relationship such that his parental rights were entitled to the same constitutional protection as any other parent. Evidence of record supports the trial court’s finding that he did.” The court found that the trial court “followed its duties in this regard. [It] also advised the parties that they could seek termination of father’s parental rights under the Juvenile Code. The Juvenile Code is much broader than the Adoption Code. Mother and petitioners will have much more leeway to establish that father is an unfit parent whose parental rights should be terminated if they take this legal pathway.”