Termination under § 19b(3)(g); Reasonable reunification efforts; Effect of the existence of “aggravated circumstances”; MCL 712A.19a(1)(a); MCL 722.638(1)(a)(i) & (2); Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Effect of relative placement; In re Atchley

The court held that there was no plain error in terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights without offering reunification services because aggravated circumstances existed under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(i) and (2). Further, the evidence established § (g) as a statutory ground for termination, and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that it was in the children’s best interests. As to the lack of reasonable reunification efforts, “the record thoroughly and unequivocally established that respondent abandoned all five of her children.” She left three of them with their biological father (M) and the other two with her mother (B) without providing “the appropriate legal authority needed to take care of them; she did not execute a power of attorney, she did not establish a guardianship, and she did not establish [M] as a legal father. She also provided no financial support and went months at a time without visiting them.” Further, the children left with M “were placed at an unreasonable risk of harm by respondent leaving them in the care of a person who sexually abused her younger sister while she and the children were at the home with him.” As to § (g), clear and convincing evidence showed “that respondent disengaged from her children’s lives almost two years before DHHS became involved. She did not visit them regularly or check on them, and did not maintain regular contact with her family, who often did not know” where she was. This continued after the petition was filed. She did not regularly visit her children or maintain contact with the caseworker, and did not attend several court hearings. Under the “circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that respondent failed to provide proper care and custody for her children and would not do so within a reasonable period of time.” As to the children’s best interests, they referred to B as their mother and she “was willing to care for them long term.” The caseworker did not believe respondent and the children had a bond, and testified that termination was in the children’s best interests due to respondent’s not visiting them and not providing contact information. Further, the trial court considered their relative placement in “its analysis, but it also observed that respondent had not made any meaningful effort to engage with the children during their placement, both before and after the petition was filed.” Affirmed.