Termination under § 19b(3)(k)(iii); Relative placements; MCL 712A.13a(1)(j); Children’s best interests; Case service plan; Bond with the children

Holding that the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights to the children (AW and CS), the court affirmed. While she argued “that the trial court erred by terminating her rights without providing her services to reunify the family, at no time did she request any assistance and in fact she told the court that she wished to sign over her parental rights.” Respondent’s argument also failed “to recognize that while the general rule is that ‘[r]easonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases[,]’ there is an exception to that rule in cases such as this” where aggravated circumstances exist, pursuant to MCL 722.638. There was no question that she “abused AW and abusing a child or sibling by battering is considered an aggravating circumstance.” The trial court’s finding that § (k)(iii) existed “was not clearly erroneous in light of the fact that respondent admitted to battering AW when she said she beat AW in the head until AW’s head was bleeding. AW and CS testified that respondent battered AW with a gun, a thick wooden stick, and a broom handle, along with respondent’s own hands and feet. That respondent used wooden objects to beat AW until she bled from the head is undisputed, and therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it found respondent battered AW.” Given that it “found aggravating circumstances existed, it was not obligated to provide respondent with a case service plan or other reasonable efforts.” The record made clear she “put her children at serious risk. She admittedly beat one child for almost an hour and admitted to subjecting the minor child to prior beatings. AW testified that she was afraid of respondent and respondent seemingly showed no remorse for having beaten her child to a point where she should have been hospitalized. Further, during the trial, the record makes clear that respondent’s anger issues remained as she grew frustrated and told the trial court she wanted to relinquish her parental rights.” As the DHHS stated “in the brief on appeal, respondent stated: ‘If I’m signing my rights over, I don’t see why we are still in court.’” After questioning from the trial court, she “again stated her desire to relinquish her parental rights while naming the individuals with whom she wanted her children placed.” Respondent also argued the trial court did not address the children’s placement before finding that termination was proper. The court determined that because “neither of the children were placed with a relative within the version of MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) applicable at the time, the trial court did not err by failing to address” their placement. Finally, it concluded “the trial court did not clearly err when it found that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights.”