Best-interests determination on remand; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White; Relative placement consideration; MCL 712A.13a(1)(j); In re Olive/Metts

The court held that the trial court did not err in concluding, after remand, that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. This appeal followed a prior remand directing the trial court to conduct a fuller best-interests analysis after statutory grounds for termination were affirmed, and on remand the trial court held a hearing and again found termination appropriate. On appeal, the court emphasized that “the focus of the best-interests inquiry is on the child, not the parent,” and that a trial court may consider factors including “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality,” as well as the advantages of the child’s placement. The court held that the trial court properly considered the child’s placement with his mother as “an explicit factor to consider,” along with the child’s well-being in that placement and respondent’s inability to provide permanence due to his conduct and incarceration. Addressing respondent’s argument that his bond with the child precluded termination, the court concluded that the record supported the finding that the bond had weakened over time and explained that “even if the trial court clearly erred in finding deterioration of the bond, that factor alone is not dispositive.” The panel further held that the trial court appropriately weighed the danger respondent posed to the child in light of respondent’s sexual abuse of the child’s sibling and respondent’s guilty pleas to CSC II and child sexually abusive material offenses, which resulted in lengthy prison sentences directly bearing on respondent’s capacity to provide stability and finality. Because the trial court considered “a wide range of factors, all of which are supported by the record,” and respondent did not dispute the evidentiary support for those findings, the court concluded that the best-interests determination was not erroneous and affirmed.