Child’s best interests; Claim that a guardianship pursuant to MCL 712A.19a(8) & (9) was appropriate; In re Rippy

Concluding that respondent-father’s guardianship argument was misplaced, and that the trial court did not err in finding that terminating his parental rights was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondent contended “he was making ‘substantial progress towards reunification’ and, instead of terminating his parental rights, a guardianship pursuant to MCL 712A.19a(8) & (9) was appropriate.” The court rejected this argument “for several reasons. First, the proceedings to terminate [his] parental rights had already been initiated by the time [he] started asserting that a guardianship was more appropriate than adoption. Additionally, the agency and case service plans cautioned against a guardianship, and instead advocated for adoption as the goal, counter to MCL 712A.19a(8).” The court noted it did not appear from the record that he advocated for a guardianship before “his best-interest hearing. Further, a guardianship contemplated by MCL 712A.19a(8) is permissive, not obligatory, as a ‘compelling reason’ for a trial court to refrain from ‘order[ing] the agency to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights.’” In addition, the trial court concluded a guardianship was not in the child’s best interests and that, instead, terminating respondent’s rights and adoption were in her best interests. Apart from the guardianship argument, respondent only made “a generalized challenge to the trial court’s best-interest analysis. As the trial court noted, [he] had not found adequate employment, and he acknowledged that he had no plan to make his residence suitable for” the child. He also admitted that it was in her “best interests to remain with fictive kin.” The court noted that he “was largely absent from [the child’s] life, admitting that he had not visited [her] for over a year at one point. [She] was bonded with fictive kin, and [her] needs were being met.”