Petition for removal; Proper custody or guardianship under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & MCL 712A.13a(9); In re Ferranti; Adjudication; Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1); In re Baham; Reasonable reunification efforts; Mental-health services; In re MJC; Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Continuing conditions of adjudication; In re Atchley; Best interests; Relative placement & guardianship; In re Lombard

The court held that 1) the trial court did not err in authorizing the children’s removal, 2) it properly exercised jurisdiction, 3) the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, 4) clear and convincing evidence supported termination, and 5) termination was in the children’s best interests. Respondent-mother had a long history of bipolar I disorder with manic and psychotic features, repeated involuntary psychiatric hospitalizations, and numerous prior removals of children from her care. This case arose after another psychiatric crisis and a jail stay. Respondent again became unable to care for the children. On appeal, the court held that removal and adjudication were proper because the children were left “without proper custody or guardianship” when respondent had not actually placed them with their aunt when needed, and because her repeated “detachments from reality, escalated behavior, hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized thinking created a substantial risk of harm to the children’s physical and mental well-being[.]” The court next held that the DHHS made reasonable efforts because respondent’s parent-agency agreement plainly required psychiatric care, the agency “regularly communicated with [her] about her mental-health services,” and she “refused to engage in psychiatric care or take any psychiatric medications.” The court also held that § (c)(i) was proven because she “did not address her severe mental-health problems,” the case had remained pending for “more than 1,000 days,” and there was “no reasonable probability that [she] would rectify her mental health within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.” Finally, although the children were in relative care, the court held that termination was in their best interests because the children “thrived in their aunt’s home,” their behaviors “improved dramatically,” and adoption would provide them permanency and stability. Affirmed.