Due process; Right to the care & custody of one’s child; Case service plan; MCL 712A.18f(1), (2), (4), & (5); Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Child’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Relative placement & guardianship; Distinguishing In re L J Lombard

The court held that the trial court did not err by terminating respondents-parents’ parental rights to their child. Respondent-mother’s rights were terminated on the basis of mental health issues. Respondent-father’s rights were terminated on the basis of mental health issues, substance abuse, and criminality. On appeal, the court rejected the mother’s argument that she was deprived of her fundamental right to the care and custody of her child without adequate notice of what she was expected to achieve, in violation of her right to due process. It noted she was “repeatedly notified of the issues that had brought her child into care and that had persisted throughout the case” and she “attended the periodic review hearings and heard the caseworker testify about” the DHHS’s reunification efforts and her progress on her case service plan. Further, she failed to identify “additional services that should have been included in her case service plan to assist her in overcoming her” issues. Any “failure to comply with the technical requirements of MCL 712A.18f(5) did not affect the outcome of the proceedings in the trial court or otherwise prejudice” her. The court next rejected both parents’ claim that a statutory ground was not met. As to the mother, it found § (c)(i) was met, noting “the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist and there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” the child’s age. It also found § (c)(i) was met as to the father, noting “there was sufficient evidence that he failed to comply with, or benefit from, his case service plan. The evidence revealed that he was not able to achieve sobriety and a crime-free lifestyle, or to maintain stable housing or income adequate to meet” the child’s needs and it was clear he “could not rectify the conditions that led to [the] removal within a reasonable time, considering the child’s age.” Finally, the court rejected their contention that termination was not in the child’s best interests. “[T]he trial court considered all of the applicable factors when making its best-interest determination.” In addition, the “evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the foster home offered advantages over respondents’ home.” It also “explicitly addressed relative placement when considering the best-interest factors.” Affirmed.