Termination under §§ 19b(3)(e), (f), & (g); Child’s best interests; In re White; Assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(5) & (6)

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err by assuming jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(5) and (6), in determining there were statutory grounds for terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights, and in finding that doing so was in the child’s (G) best interests Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. It noted that the trial court assumed jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(5) and (6) but respondent did not make any argument in her brief as to (5). In any event, it concluded the trial court did not err in finding both grounds for jurisdiction were established. As to (5), respondent “was given a court-structured plan that required her to complete two random drug screens per week, obtain and maintain stable housing and income, provide proof of substance abuse assessment and treatment, and follow the treatment recommendations.” She did not comply with any of the requirements. As to (6), she contested the trial court’s finding that she was able to provide G with support. But she was receiving G’s “social security payment for the first 10 months” G was living with G’s aunt. “Respondent never used this money to buy necessaries for” G, and she did not provide the money to the aunt. As to the grounds for termination, the court held that “the trial court did not clearly err by terminating respondent’s parental rights” under § (e), because she “failed to follow the court-structured plan, and consequently, was suspended from visiting [G], thereby disrupting her relationship with” the child. As to § (f), respondent raised the same argument she raised challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(6), and the court rejected it for the same reasons. As to § (g), the evidence was clear she did not provide G “with proper care or custody before sending her to live with” the aunt, and did not “obtain suitable housing or employment to provide proper care and custody to [G] when the guardianship began. Respondent’s failure to be involved in the court proceedings or show any attempts to comply with her court-structured plan indicated there was no reasonable expectation that she would be able to provide proper care and custody to [G] within a reasonable time, especially considering” the child’s young age and need for stability.