Finding as to the existence of a statutory basis for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3); Children’s best interests; Effect of relative placement

While the court rejected the DHHS’s argument “that the trial court failed to determine that a statutory basis for termination” was established, it concluded “that the trial court erred by applying the wrong legal framework” in assessing the children’s best interests. Thus, it vacated the orders declining to terminate respondents’ parental rights and remanded “for redetermination of the children’s best interests applying the proper legal framework.” It first found that the trial court “made brief, definite, and pertinent findings on the record, sufficient to satisfy MCR 3.977(I)(1) and MCL 712A.19b(1), when it accepted” respondents’ no-contest pleas and found they “were not contesting that a statutory basis had been established.” As a result, it “did not fail to find that a statutory basis for termination of respondents’ parental rights to the four children under MCL 712A.19b(3) had been established by clear and convincing evidence.” But it did clearly err “when it concluded it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate respondents’ parental rights because [its] analysis focused almost exclusively on the children’s placement with relatives. In doing so, [it] incorrectly surmised that this Court has a policy favoring guardianships over termination of parental rights.” The court noted that it “does not have a ‘policy’ favoring (or disfavoring) guardianships. Rather, [it] considers each case on its own merits, as should a trial court assessing” a child’s best interests. The court found that “by focusing on the perception that guardianship was a preferred outcome, the trial court failed fully to consider other relevant and important factors. The children have spent virtually no time in respondents’ care because each of [them] was removed from respondents’ custody shortly after birth.” In addition, respondents failed to comply with their case service plans, which were designed “to address their substance abuse, mental health, and homelessness.” As of the time the trial court made its ruling, they had shown “no progress toward overcoming their substance abuse, had not obtained suitable housing, and had not demonstrated that they will ever be able adequately to care for the children.” The court also noted that the record suggested “concerns with the relative placement.” It retained jurisdiction and issued an order as to the proceedings on remand.