Children’s best interests; Effect of a relative placement; MCL 712A.19a(8)(a); In re Olive/Metts

Because the trial court failed to address the children’s (NDD and MOK) “placement with a relative and weigh it against termination,” the court vacated the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights and remanded. It noted that several “factors weighed in favor of terminating respondent’s parental rights. [She] had a history of domestic violence, including the incident underlying her criminal conviction.” In addition, her “parenting ability was concerning. [She] admitted that she abused cocaine and alcohol. And, according to NDD, respondent used to call him names and took him to Children’s Hospital when he did not need to go because she wanted him out of the house. [Her] treatment of NDD was probative of how she might treat MOK.” She was also “unable to personally care for her children because she is serving a minimum 15-year prison sentence” and while she placed MOK with a grandmother, “NDD was left without any proper care when grandmother refused to pick NDD up from the hospital after NDD was placed with her via the safety plan.” Also favoring termination was the fact that “stability and permanency would be beneficial for the children.” However, other factors weighed against termination, including “evidence that the children had a bond with respondent.” In addition, “the trial court failed to explicitly address the children’s relative placement. Evidence at the termination hearing established that MOK had been living with grandmother, a relative, since” 12/23, and NDD “was scheduled to be placed in grandmother’s care just days after the hearing.” The court noted that while “every attorney referenced the relative placement in their closing arguments, the trial court’s oral ruling and subsequent order failed to explicitly address it. The trial court’s omission, specifically the lack of any discussion whether termination was appropriate in light of the children’s placement with a relative, rendered the factual record inadequate to make a best-interest determination.”