Best-interests determination; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White; Effect of parental incarceration on best interests; MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); In re Jenks

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Respondent, the legal father of MRGD, was incarcerated for the vast majority of the child’s life following convictions including assault with intent to commit sexual penetration, and his parental rights had previously been terminated to another child based on prolonged incarceration. At the best-interests hearing, the evidence showed respondent had never met MRGD in person, had limited and inconsistent phone contact while incarcerated, failed to visit or provide support during a brief parole period, and remained unable to provide care or custody within a reasonable time. The trial court found no meaningful bond, noting respondent had been incarcerated for approximately 90% of the child’s life and that MRGD referred to him by his first name while calling her foster father “dad.” On appeal, the court reiterated that “the focus of the best-interest determination is on the child, not the parent,” and that a child’s interest in permanency, stability, and finality is paramount once statutory grounds are established. Although incarceration alone does not mandate termination, the court explained that the length and impact of incarceration are proper considerations, particularly where the parent cannot provide a normal home within the foreseeable future. The court emphasized that MRGD was doing very well in foster care, had expressed a desire to remain there, and had a strong likelihood of adoption, while respondent’s anticipated release did not outweigh the child’s need for immediate permanence. Because the trial court weighed the relevant factors and its findings were supported by the record, the court was not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made. Affirmed.