Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Guardianship; MCL 722.873(c); In re TK; Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.18f(3)(b) & (c); In re Hicks; MCL 712A.19a(2); A parent’s responsibility to participate in the offered services; In re Frey; Best interests of the children; In re White

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider guardianship in lieu of termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. It also held that the trial court did not err by directing the DHHS to no longer provide efforts toward reunification or abuse its discretion by suspending respondent’s parenting time. Finally, it held that the trial court did not err by finding that § (c)(i) existed or that termination was in the child’s best interests. The trial court found that, “throughout this case, reasonable efforts to reunify the family had been unsuccessful and respondent never demonstrated the ability to properly care for” her child. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred by terminating her rights because it failed to consider guardianship options and concluded that reasonable efforts to reunify were no longer necessary. While she claimed “guardianship was appropriate because the child was placed with relatives, the issue of guardianship was not brought up before the trial court and” was, thus, unpreserved. Further, respondent failed in her “duty to participate in, and benefit from, the offered services.” The court found she raised “no valid challenge to the reasonableness of the DHHS’s efforts. The DHHS offered respondent numerous services aimed at removing the barriers to reunification, but [she] did not substantially participate in and benefit from the services offered throughout this case.” Contrary to her contention, the trial court did not err “by directing the DHHS to no longer provide efforts toward reunification after the goal was changed to termination.” In addition, it “did not abuse its discretion by suspending respondent’s parenting time.” The court also rejected her argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. “[B]ased on respondent’s drug use and failure to comply with the parenting plan, the trial court concluded that the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist with no reasonable likelihood of change in the foreseeable future given the child’s age and respondent’s conduct throughout the case.” Given the circumstances, it did not err when it terminated her parental rights under § (c)(i). Finally, the court rejected her claim that termination was not in the child’s best interests. “The failure to benefit from the case-service plan alone was enough to indicate that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests based on the risk of harm to the child if placed in respondent’s care and custody.” Further, she never showed she could provide a stable home for the child. Affirmed.