Children’s best interests; In re Gonzales/Martinez; History of domestic violence; In re Rippy; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors; “Relative”; MCL 712A.13a(1)(j); “Within the fifth degree of blood”; MCL 710.22(y); Whether remand was required

Holding that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights. His rights were terminated on the basis of domestic violence. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court failed to consider the children’s placement with their mother as a relative-placement factor that weighed against termination of his parental rights. It found that a reasonable interpretation of MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) “indicates that the children’s placement with their biological mother” constituted a relative placement. As such, this placement “triggered the trial court’s obligation to consider this placement as a factor weighing against termination of” his parental rights. It then noted that the trial court “considered the children’s placement with their biological mother by hearing testimony about that placement and acknowledging [they] were with her when it discussed best interests and the possibility of a future adoption by a partner of” hers. The “record demonstrates that the trial court was aware of the relative-placement aspect in the case and correctly applied the law therein.” And because “a relative placement does not always weigh against termination, the circumstances in which a relative placement does not weigh against termination are limited but appropriate to consider.” Given that respondent “repeatedly and violently abused the relative with whom the children were placed, the record demonstrates that this relative placement could not safely facilitate an ongoing relationship between respondent and the children.” Moreover, the trial court: (1) “acknowledged that the children had a bond with respondent, but they had not spent time with him in eight months”; (2) “considered the factor concerning the possibility of adoption in the future, noting that ‘their father might be able to waltz back into their lives at some point in the future, particularly after a potentially lengthy period of incarceration if that’s what lies ahead, [but] these children deserve the chance to have somebody step up and be the father figure that they need’ if and when that opportunity presents itself”; and (3) “found that the children were young and needed permanency.”