Petition to terminate guardianship of a child; The best-interest factors in MCL 700.5101(a); Lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL)

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-mother’s petition to terminate petitioners-grandparents’ guardianship of her child (JM), the court affirmed. It previously twice remanded the case to the trial court for articulation of findings and conclusions on the best-interest factors in MCL 700.5101(a). As an initial matter here, it rejected the mother’s assertion that the trial court failed to comply with its second remand order because its “findings of fact were impermissibly based on a 2023 report prepared by JM’s” LGAL. The record did not support this. As to the best-interest factors, the trial court made detailed findings under each one, and “stated whether each factor favored mother or grandparents, even going so far as to assign a numerical value to its findings under each factor indicating the degree to which it favored each party. The trial court was certainly not required to create or use such a numerical scoring system” but the court could not fault it “for erring on the side of completeness.” The court found no clear error in the trial court’s findings on the factors the mother challenged on appeal. As to factors (i) and (ii), it noted that “the trial court acknowledged the recent progress of the relationship between mother and JM, but found” that these factors nonetheless favored the grandparents. The court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that” it made a mistake in doing so. As to factor (ix), the mother claimed “that the trial court erroneously gave ‘extreme weight’ to this factor, especially in light of JM’s special needs and difficulties with emotional regulation.” The court disagreed, noting that “the trial court found that the majority of the best-interest factors favored grandparents, with some factors either neutral or inapplicable. This is not a situation in which the trial court impermissibly prioritized JM’s preference over other factors that favored mother.” Her challenges to the findings on factors (iii)-(v), (vii)-(viii), (x), and (xii) also failed. “The trial court concluded that the best-interest factors favored the denial of mother’s petition to terminate the guardianship” and the court determined that “its factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and supported that conclusion[.]”