Permanent custody petition; Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(6); Termination under § 19b(3)(f)(i) & (ii); “Parent”; MCR 3.903(A)(18); “Father”; MCR 3.903(A)(7); Principle that a putative father does not qualify as a father for the purpose of jurisdiction; In re Long; In re Knipp; Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Gonzales/Martinez; Relative placement

The court held that because the trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction over the child (CSA) as to respondent-father, it could not terminate his parental rights. However, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over respondent-mother and did not err by terminating her parental rights to CSA. Petitioners-guardians filed a permanent custody petition seeking to adopt CSA and requested that the trial court assume jurisdiction and terminate respondents’ parental rights. The trial court granted the petition, finding respondents failed or neglected to support the child for two years or more before the filing of the petition. On appeal, respondents argued that a statutory ground for termination was not met. The court agreed as to the father. In light of the holdings in both Long and Knipp, it concluded “that because [he] only was the putative father when the" petition was filed, “and he did not establish his paternity to CSA until approximately two months afterwards, the trial court erred when it terminated his parental rights under [§ (f)] because it improperly exercised its jurisdiction over CSA with respect to [him] before his parentage was recognized legally.” As to the mother, the court noted she “was employed and capable of providing support for CSA while CSA was under petitioners’ care, yet she did not do so.” As such, the trial court did not err by finding § (f) was proven by clear and convincing evidence. Finally, as to CSA’s best interests, the court found that “because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over CSA with respect to [the] father, [it] was barred further from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate” the father’s parental rights. Conversely, the trial court did not “err when it determined that termination of [the] mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of CSA under MCL 712A.19b(5).” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.