Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts Minors; The doctrine of anticipatory neglect

Holding that the trial court did not err in finding that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s (BMM) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. While she asserted the trial court failed to “adequately weigh the undisputed evidence showing that she shared a bond with BMM, regularly exercised her parenting time, and acted appropriately during parenting time[,]” the court noted that these were “only two of several factors that the trial court considered.” It was also presented with evidence showing “a continuing inability to effectively parent. For example, respondent[] left her stable housing voluntarily to ‘live with another man’ and as a result, was left without a suitable home. There also was evidence of an incident during which [she] broke a window during an argument with BMM’s father when BMM was inside the home.” As to the child’s “need for permanency, stability, and finality, the trial court stated respondent[] was ‘not prepared on today’s date to plan for the child,’ specifically mentioning the lengthy CPS history that” she had related “to her other children that never resulted in improvement.” Evidence that respondent “had untreated mental health needs” was also presented to the trial court. And the court held that the trial court “properly applied the doctrine of anticipatory neglect to find that” termination was in BMM’s best interests. There was evidence that three other children were removed from respondent’s care after one of them “sustained multiple serious physical injuries in 2020.” That child was released to his father, who obtained full custody in 2022. Respondent’s rights to the other two children were terminated in 2023. “At the best-interests hearing, the trial court considered BMM individually.” However, it “noted that it ‘can look at how you treat one child and . . . determine . . . that may be probative of how you may treat another child.’” It found respondent’s “inability to treat ‘mental health needs’ was one example indicating her ‘behaviors are unlikely to change.’ As a result, there was an increased risk of BMM ‘being subjected to an unstable and unhealthy environment.’” The court determined that the “finding that BMM was at risk was not mere speculation, considering that respondent[] threatened physical abuse to BMM on one occasion and broke a window when BMM was present on another occasion.”