Competing adoption petitions; Challenges to denials of consent to adopt (§ 45 motions); MCL 710.45; The Michigan Children’s Institute’s (MCI) superintendent’s authority to consent to the adoption of any child committed to the MCI as a state ward; MCL 400.209; Consent under MCL 710.43(1)(b); Whether a decision to withhold consent was arbitrary & capricious; MCL 710.45(2); In re Keast; Clear & convincing evidence; MCL 710.45(7); The Adoption Code’s 11 best-interest factors; Bethany Christian Services (BCS)

The court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing the denied petitioners’ § 45 motions and dismissing their petitions to adopt. Respondent-MCI granted consent to the child’s maternal grandmother and denied the other petitions. The denied petitioners filed § 45 motions challenging the denials of consent, which the trial court denied. On the most recent remand from the court, following a second § 45 hearing, the trial court again denied the other adoption petitions. In the present appeal, the court rejected the denied petitioners’ argument that the trial court erred by upholding the MCI superintendent’s (M) decisions to withhold consent to the adoptions. M “gave several reasons for denying consent” and for approving the maternal grandmother. “The record reflects that [M’s] decisions to deny consent” to the denied petitioners “were not whimsical or determined by caprice.” In addition, there was no evidence that M considered communications from adoption caseworkers when denying their respective adoption petitions. There was also no evidence that M “heavily relied on” apparent concerns of the trial court. In addition, the trial court found that “MCI and BCS staff truthfully denied holding or expressing any bias against the” denied petitioners, and “that the BCS and MCI communications and documents” they presented lacked appropriate context. Further, M “believed that the child could maintain his relationship with the” denied petitioners while in the maternal grandmother’s care. And the denied petitioners’ claims that M “moved through the child’s case without appropriate consideration, and relied on improper hearsay evidence,” were unsupported by the record. The record also reflected that M “spent a considerable amount of time on the child’s case.” Further, while the denied petitioners claimed M “relied on child-welfare articles that were irrelevant and constituted hearsay when deciding to withhold consent to them, the record reflects that these articles regarded sibling placements and were relevant to” M’s decision-making process. Finally, the “record clearly reflects that [M] considered the Adoption Code’s best-interest factors, additional factors relevant to the child’s case, the results of her own investigation, documents provided by BCS and the parties, and additional resources regarding child welfare before making thoughtful and well-reasoned decisions supported by the documents provided to her.” Affirmed.