Children’s best interests; Guardianship alternative to termination; MCL 712A.19a(9)

Holding that a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in his children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. He contended that the trial court did not adequately consider their bond with him, their “placement with a relative, and the possibility of a guardianship in lieu of termination.” The court disagreed, finding that the trial court considered each of these matters. The court noted that respondent, “allegedly while under the influence of substances, quarreled and fought with another man at respondent’s home while the children were present in the home, allegedly killing the other man and resulting in respondent being charged with second-degree murder. Even if [he] were to prevail in the criminal charges against him, it is unlikely that respondent would provide the children with stability and permanence. Before the children were removed from his care, respondent did not provide [them] with safe and suitable housing; respondent’s home lacked basic necessities, such as water, sewer, and heat, and holes in the roof and windows let the elements into the home. The children reported not having adequate food and did not consistently attend school.” As to the possibility of a guardianship, “a trial court may appoint a guardian only if a guardianship is in the child’s best interests” and it was not shown to be so in this case. Thus, the trial court did not err in rejecting a guardianship here.